lol having your head up your butt must be great.

How about deciding on a freakin' name?

(What the hell was Drew talking about?)

The only way make his statement true is the next box better beat the cell processer for ps3

Well I'm pulling for MS. I hope that an American Company can dominate the Japanese for once.

Why was Microsoft XboX so great?? Because it was the most powerfull console, and XboX Live overruled all other online-services.

But if you look @ the games , I found the other consoles the best, alrighty, I have Halo on XboX, but I also have got lot`s of great exclusives on my other platforms, more exclusive games then on XboX to say. (i go Sony, M and nintendo`s console imho)

Point is, if XboX 2 isn`t more powerfull then other consoles, it loses it`s greatest key to become the number 1 console. And has @ least one buyer less. I even begin to believe that Playstation 3 will be more powerfull then this console.

ps: I don`t care if it`s american or japanese, what a stupid argument is that?

Hi..hope Ms gonna surclass sony (cause sony always siad faulse things about ps2 before hit the market) and i think Xbox was(is) really the powerfull and great console, but peoples are BRAIN WASHED for the Ultra-Galaxy-Commercial spent from Sony!

Xbox2 must (and it will be) Rules!
Thank you all.

Christian, Italy

blackdevl = jewness

Drew - is your comment coming from first-hand experience? Does your nose get hung-up on the way back out?

Sean,

It doesn't have to "beat" the Cell processor. At least not directly. Hell, for all we know Xbox 2 is going to HAVE a Cell processor.

But the other thing to remember is that the Xbox 2 is going to use a specially crafted R5xx chip from ATI. The PS3 will undoubtedly ship without a GPU, just like the PS2. Instead, it will rely on its Cell processors to crunch vectors.

In the end, overall performance won't be the PS3 CPU(s) versus the Xbox2 CPU(s). It will be the PS3 CPU(s) plus raster engine versues the Xbox 2's CPU(s) plus GPU(s?).

Furthermore, as graphics technologies get better and better, they become more complicated. Making it so that developers can easily take advantage of that power is key. I think that's where Microsoft is going to win in the next generation. Their XNA development platform is really going to turn the tide.

They do have to nail backward-compatability and Xbox Live support, in my mind. If I can't put my copy of MechAssault 2 (for Xbox 1) into the Xbox 2 and play online with my Live account, I will be disappointed. I fully expect the Xbox 2 to play Xbox 1 games, and I fully expect Xbox Live to be the same no matter which system you're playing from (aside from the obvious support for newer/better features on XB2).

Brandon, you are an idiot, sony/toshiba/IBM has the patent to the cell processor, no chance in hell will they allow MS to use it in the next box. Furthermore you are ignorant of the fact that the PS3 will feature a GPU unit from Nvidia. I'll just stop right there since I don't want to waste anymore time on you.

ps3 rules its gona kick ms ass

Anders your right about the PS3 having an Nvidia GPU, but who's to say it wont have a cell processor?
You have to remember, sony/toshiba/IBM all use MICROSOFT windows, im sure there's a way for M$ to bully them into being able to use the cell processor....although sony's gonna fight hard for that one. If M$ can get a deal with toshiba or IBM, that's all they need since each company will be doing their own things with the cell processor and using it in different applications (HDTV's, PC's, Consoles) Im sure sony doesn't have to know every move IBM and Toshiba plan on making with the cell cpu. We will see though, M$ better have some plan, because that cell CPU kicks assss on paper.

Anders, have you forgotten that xbox 2 will already by using the PowerPC cpu? Xbox2 is already firmly in bed with IBM

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14407

you said it right
'sounds good on paper '
I think Sony is just a little bit too cocky this time. Remember microsoft was designing a chip too. Sony has already showed their first card M.S. has not so for anyone to claim Sony a victor over something put on paper is plain idiodic. Two words "emotion engine ". Anyone remeber that old thing???

Microsoft wil not be using anything based or anything like the cell prossesor. simply put it was a 3 way project and all 3 companys have got to agree on who gets to use it and if one dosnt agree then to let microsoft use it then microsfot will not se it. if they di huge law suits would start.

many people say that the ps2 is crap can i just remind people that when it first cam out in 2000 no pc came close to the graphics it was capable of producing. the ps2 was exactly like what sony said it would be like it is a hugly powerfull the emotion egine is even more powerfull in almost every way compared to the celeron basec chip inside the xbox even thow its onl half the speed.

the xbox2 will not have the power of the ps3 FACT

the xbox 2 will ony be using 2 G5 corse with dual threading running at 3 to 3.5GHZ. the ps3 WILL have 4 to 8 Cell based prosesores (the prossesor in the ps3 is called the broudband engine) each cell will run at between 4-4.5ghz and each cell is threaded 10 ways! the core is 2 threads and the 8 APUs are single threaded.

the ps3 if everything goes right will come out 6 months after the xbox 2 and will revolutionise not only CPU arctiecture and the pc industry (becouse of the cell. but will in the graphics and phisics and lighting side of games will destroy all the compatition.

First of all, the PS3 having more power than the Xbox2 is not a fact, well not yet atleast. And untill you see both systems side by side, up and running, then shut up. The only reason Xbox1 has more power than the PS2 is because Sony rushed the launch and MS did not so they had WAY more time(a year. For you dumbasses)to add a powerfull cpu/gpu to their console. So untill both consoles are out. Shut up...

Being first to the market is not always a good thing. Remember the Dreamcast. Not a great system, but not horrible either ... And where is Sega now? People waited for the Playstation 2 instead of buying the dreamcast(technical specs aside).

i think that ps3 wil suk becase the sony ppl do not no how to make stuff work rite.

MS RULES. WOOT!

The Cell is very good looking on paper...

BUT...it's all a bunch of fluff...
You need MUCH faster, lower-latency ram to make the Cell effective.
You need faster I/O...much faster BUS speeds. All expensive and highly taxing things need to be done...Plus the fact that faster ram will likely be less reliable.

Then consider the fact that the Cell is not going to be really all that good for multitasking varied processes, rather it will be good for processing the same thing multiple times. It will be good for rendering textures and statistical analysis...not the varied tasks of Joe Anybody. Given this information, Sony will PROBABLY be doing most of the graphics processing on the Cell...regardless of what GPU it has.

The cell would be great as a Coprocessor or graphics chip. Nothing more. It's not going to revolutionize squat...it's going to just create a new architecture that looks faster on paper, but due to the requirements it needs to function, will work much the same as current hardware does at less speed and power.

Don't believe the hype.

FOR THE VISUALLY IMPARED, yeah the ps2 graphics are just like that old man they showed off when they preveiwed the 'emotin engine" and nothing else has come close to that since. Hahaha!
Are you kidding me. what were you looking at to say that the graphics looked better than any thing on PC or Xbox at that time ? As for this cell thing lets see how great it is when you see that price. Not to mention the long dev time its going to take to master this complicated peice of hardware. Until everyone shows what they have in store please hold your fanboy judgements to yourself.

cell procesor wil also suk becase the memory speed wil hit a well defined region of impedence due to signal bleedover. also consider that paking electoron paths to close wil increase the potential 4 quantum tunneling effect and subseqent bit flipping. that wil lead to undefined states that wil crash the console.

MS RULES!! WOOT!

Ballmer kept saying it was the games that would make the difference in consoles. That may be true but since 80-90% of console games are availible on both PS2 and Xbox that doesn't help. Then it comes down to exlusive titles. PS2 has many more exclusive titles than Xbox, it's no comparison. Halo 1 & 2 have the been the saving grace of the Xbox and while they are good games they don't have any gameplay features you can't find as good or better on the PC, and the multiplayer on those is usually free (CounterStrike & CS:Source). I'm sure that both consoles will be sufficiently powerful to provide stunning graphics but that won't win the day for MS. They have not been able to crack the Japanese market open and have only outsold the Gamecube periodically in Europe. MS's only success has been in the U.S. and they are behind Sony by a mile. I don't think that is going to change with the Xbox2, all we have heard is hype from Ballmer while Sony stays quiet until they are ready to release. I still found it sweetly ironic that MS is using a PowerPC processor in the new box, that will probably eliminate backwards compatibility and since they haven't addressed that subject definitively yet I wouldn't count on it happening. Sony did it right last time and I can't see them screwing it up the third time around.

My bet's on Sony. The Cell's a technological marvel with awesome computational power, a trillion floating point ops per second a the high end (http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8147144189.html).

It uses an altogether different paradigm so t's more difficult to program to, but I do hope they'll pull it off.

Also, remember that Cell won't be just for the PS3. We're talking about a processor which might achieve ubiquity in the future across a broader range of devices than seen before.

"during an event for minority high-school students"

This just in. MS has decided to run an event just for white high school students.

Does the above statement annoy you? If so, why doesn't the statement above that annoy you?

Why is it the case that pro-MS postings here (and, to a lesser extent, in other forums) seem to have been written by functionally illiterate contributors? Just a thought, not a criticism.

Teh MS r0xx0rzzzz!!!
Teh SONY 5uxx0rzzz!!!!

HAHA! SUCKAZ!

Observer has made the comment that por-MS posters apear to be illeterate. that is compleately unfair.

MS RULES!! LINUX DROOLS!!

Okay, whoever was saying that we're ignorant for thinking that there's going to be a GPU from nVidia is sadly mistaken. There IS going to be an nVidia GPU... its actually been guessed that it will be a modified Cell processor. For those of you who know little if nothing about the Cell, here's a little recap. The Cell is a PowerPC 970 CPU with 8 SPE units. The PowerPC portion will delegate to the SPEs what to do. The P4 3Ghz = 5-6Gflops (billion floating point operations per second) whereas ONE cell theoretically can hit 256Gflops. The PS3 will have 4; thats 1 tflop. Also, the memory fro each SPE is only used by that SPE. So, each one will have its own RAM and will transfer to that RAM at 100GB/sec. That's not what I would call slow. There is no cache; just a high speed memory connection. Also, there WILL be an nVidia GPU, and it might take a Cell, take out some, or all, of the SPEs and replace them with customized SPEs for graphics. (this is a rumor... but there IS an nVidia GPU)

The PS3 will blow the Xbox, or next box or whatever the hell Microsoft wants to call their box-o-rocks(C) and there's not much Misrosoft can do about it short of making their own processor; and we all know they won't leave the x86 side.

"The Cell is a PowerPC 970 CPU with 8 SPE units."

with 50-80 wats per cell, how do you cool 400-680 wats inside of a sealed consol case?

i can't believe you guy actually argue about this stuff.... get a life

sony suks

"THIS JUST IN SONY WILL BE USING THE CELL TO PRODUCE E.ENGINE STYLE GRAPHICS" " MICROSOFT WILL SHOW THE X.360 ON MARCH 24" "NINTENDO WILL MAKE MATURE RATED MARIO CALLED TRUE CRIMES:STREETS OF THE MUSHROOM KINGDOM"
Don't you just hate hype?

Nick... what the hell do you mean when you say a given chip is threaded 10 ways? You mean it can run 10 threads at the same time? Because that would be cool, if it was true, which it is not. Each cell only does one thread at a time. Or do you mean that each cell can run up to ten threads, which would be pathetic, but is also wrong. The emotion engine you claim as superior to the XBox turned out to be crap. The PS2 turned out to do graphics worse than any of the other systems, regardless how well any particular component system in it might perform. You can debate this, but you'd be acting from your own emotions rather than any possible objective scale.

But I won't say your entire post is bull... I think Sony's system will outperform the next MS system from what I have read, but it is still way to early to tell. You can bet on this though, Sony knows their last system was underpowered by comparison, even the PC market quickly out performed their console. They won't want that to happen again, and is certainly going to use technology to try and prevent that. They have redesigned computing chips as we know them to take advantage of the parallel nature of graphics processing, so if they did it right, it might be very hard for any company not using a cell processor to compete in pure poly's per second. But until this technology is shown to be as stellar as the hype, it doesn't mean anything about performance. Any tech demos they show will also fail to impress me, as those demos are always crafted to show off strengths and hide weaknesses. The only true form of comparison is going to be showing the same game on different platforms, and see which one does it better. I eagerly await that day.

If the best games (i.e. actual content of game) today were being made for the N64 or TurboGraphix 16 or [insert old console here], I would buy that over MS's new console. The Xbox puts the PS2 to shame in the hardware department, but Sony kills MS with outstanding third party support. I mean, the Xbox is worth owning for what great games they have (and I do have one), but keep in mind that Sony doesn't have the rediculous market share they have because their hardware is the most advanced, you know. That said, I hope MS's next console has great game support, but hardware don't mean shit.

From the tech specs I've seen recently on the ps3, it's have one cell processor, consists of a general-purpose POWERPC processor core connected to eight special-purpose DSP cores which the main core off loads work on to, a nice setup admittedly, but when you think the PS2 has pretty much the same core design, the developers never got to grips with it, I wouldn't like to think how they'll deal with this setup, as they also have a GPU to off load work to as well.

The xbox 2 may only have 3 cores in it's lowly G5 based processor, but the processing logic hasn't been put into the control of the coders as much as the Cell chip has, and M$ have a good record of providing the best development kits for their systems, add a top notch ATI GPU and things could be alot closer than the fan boys are having us believe. Ballmers blow them away comment is just him hyping things up, kinda like sony did for the emotion engine saying it'd produce realtime toy story quality gfx.

"with 50-80 wats per cell, how do you cool 400-680 wats inside of a sealed consol case?" - Body Bagger

50-80 watts is the total for the chip (one with 8 SPEs, by the way) - each individual SPE runs 3-7 watts. P4s run hotter.

First, Body, you are a moron. IT does seem that the Microsoft side can't type/spell/finish a coherent sentence.

Second, I was wrong about the x86 thing. Microsoft is ALSO using a PowerPC CPU; but it's still based on a PC (MAC PC) CPU. STI designed their own CPU from the ground up. It'll be used in HDTVs, Servers, Workstations, GPUs. You name it, STI wants to put a Cell in it. (I want my toaster to crunch SETI@home data ^_^)

And there is a theoretical limit as to how fast electrons (learn to spell) can move, but 100GB/sec isn't it. On die cache goes at some crazy speeds as well. The theoretical limit of CPUs is 10Ghz. The Cell will be at about 4.6Ghz from what their patent says.

I'm not saying Sony won't mess something up like they did by not putting enough RAM in the PS2 (because it REALLY could have used more) but I don't think Microsoft will be doing anything all that amazing with dual G5 chips and their ATI GPU. I just don't see them winning. A re-hash of their same exclusive titles won't make me buy their console. Halo 3? Who cares? If it's made, it'll be the same damn thing as its predecessor; and they'll also probably port it to the PC or MAC.

Oh, and I don't see backwards compatibility happening since the Xbox was an x86 CPU and the box-o-rocks(C) is a PowerPC CPU. Sony is going to be, I believe, adding a PS2 CPU to the PS3 for backwards stuff. (Not sure, I think I read that somewhere. Don't quote me on that)

at work we have a mahcine htat has almost 1500 Intel Itanium Processors with a total peak performance hihger than 11.4 teraflops.

it doesn't play Halo 2.

it suks,

"First, Body, you are a moron."

dude, thats harsh

i just dont like sony stuff

MS ROCKS!!!

I think the cell processor is gonna be awesome.
But I don't understand why everybody expects one console to kill the other leaving just one company to rule the market, that's nuts. Especially if that company is Microsoft. How would you like to have your Xbox crashing while playing a game, or having to do updates for the xbox from the windows update webpage? All of you who claim that Halo 2 is the best game ever: there would be no Halo 2 if it wasn't for the PS2 competition... hell... there would be no Halo 1 for that matter... Microsoft already monopolizes the market with crappy software, please don't let them monopolize the video game industry with crappy games and consoles.

Well, you can't type, you can't spell, and you like using your caps lock/shift key way too much. You might have something good to say, but your childish actions hide it all...

...and why does everyone like calling Microsoft, M$?

I shall refer you to a higher power:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-11-03

Whats the big deal with backward compatibilty? When I bought a PS2 I didn't buy it to play old games or DVDs. Same thing when I got a GBA. So who really cares if XBX1 games are compatible with XBX2. Most games are not even played 6 months after purchase.

I would very much like for the XBox2 to compete with the PS3, just because market competition is a good thing, but I really worry that they are rushing this. Its supposed to be released in the Fall and there are a huge number of issues that haven't been addressed.

Given their impressive but still second place results with the Xbox against the PS2, they can't afford any mistakes in their next launch.

One question. With that cell chipset, how big will the PS3 have to be to keep it cool? The one thing I held Against the xbox was its size.

"Well, you can't type, you can't spell, and you like using your caps lock/shift key way too much. You might have something good to say, but your childish actions hide it all..."

Sano;

I have three degrees, one post-graduate, and my publications list exceeds the number of letters in your last post.

The last console I purchased was for my fifteen-year-old daughter. It was a Nintendo Game Cube. The only other console purchase I've made was a Super Nintendo. It currently resides in my youngest daughter's room (she rarely plays it, preferring instead to watch her brother play his Playstation 2).

I couldn't care less about The Great Console Wars (they sound a great deal more like the PC vs. Mac wars of 20 years ago), but enjoyed my time here immensely.

Oh, and by the way....

YHBTHAND

So, if you have all these degrees, why do you sound like you're 13? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but it would seem that if you can talk coherently, then why don't you take the time to NOT look like a moron?

And I could care less where or even how many publications you have; do you count your blog as 90% of them? Because, I still don't care.

And.... YASASFI (I just made that one up, just for you)

What the hell is up with the name brand fanboys? And I thought I'd never see this in my whole life,
"MS RULES!! WOOT!" wtf? Did I really just read that?
Never mind, sometimes it's best to just not ask.

Am I the only one who really doesn't put graphics at the top of the list? I put top notch content at the top of my list. From the Dreamcast up, the graphic power of the consoles, IMO, are good enough to deliver some great gaming visuals that don't detract from the game play.

All of the next gen consoles are going to have great graphics. I'm not going to nitpick over who pushes more polygons or whatever. The reason Sony is the top dog right is because of content. Period. They got the games the others don't have or have to wait an extra year to get. The PS2 is last in graphics right now, but there in first place in market share.

There's one last thing that needs to be said. I've logged many hours on all of the big 3 consoles and have really enjoyed them all. I favor the PS2 right now not only because of all the games, but the controller is simply the best ever made. It works for any genre. The Gamecube has a nice controller as well but doesn't work well for certain types of games, esp. fighting games. The Xbox just has the worst controller ever. It just doesn't seem to "fit", even the smaller they made and those convex buttons are horrible. This may seem petty to some, but the controller is very important and often over looked. I'll not bother to explain why. If you don't know the answer to that then there's no point.

Sorry for the controller rant.....

Honestly, Xbox launching first is a smart choice. Why? Because they know that xbx has a tighter hold over here in America. Yeah Sony is ahead of them by miles in terms of numbers but the Xbox picked up steam with gamers in the last 2yrs. Alot of people that bought PS2 years ago don't even play it anymore, also when it was bought DVD players were expensive. The edge Sony had was this fact. It will be different this time around. Sony may win again this time but it will not be by much.

"So, if you have all these degrees, why do you sound like you're 13?"

I have two kids who, at one time in their life, *were* thirteen.

I was thirteen once as well - many moons ago.

"I'm not saying I don't believe you, but it would seem that if you can talk coherently,'

To be precise, I have not "spoken" to you, so you have no idea about how I must "talk".

"then why don't you take the time to NOT look like a moron?"

Because it was sooooo fun trolling you.

"And I could care less where or even how many publications you have; do you count your blog as 90% of them? Because, I still don't care."

Then why bring it up?

Sounds like you admire me. Do I get a fan club?

"And.... YASASFI (I just made that one up, just for you)"

Now you are still refusing to be nice.

What a shame.

As much as I think Sony's console will be better in terms of harware than Microsofts, I could care less, as j.dizzle said. I would rather pull out my SNES and replay games like Chrono Trigger and the like (which I can now do on my PS1 or PS2). I also agree with the controller rant. I actually wonder if anyone at microsoft actually used it in testing... maybe they just half-assed it and rigged a PS2 controller to it. Or just used a keyboard because they knew their controller sucked.

Content is my #1 priority. Hands down. If Microsoft has it, good for them and they'll (regrettably) get my money. If its Nintendo or Sony, same thing. Though, I hope it's not Microsoft...

Cell+Blu-Ray+expensive dev kits+long dev times= One expensive PS3. Have fun. Hope wages increase so I can own it.

I brought up the publication thing because I wanted to point out to you that I didn't care and that you didn't need to add it. Also, having two kids who WERE 13 doesn't excuse you for sounding like you're 13. I really don't like taking people seriously unless they sound semi-intelligible.

Oh, and yes, I am sorry. I should have typed, "but it would seem that if you can TYPE coherently".

I'm not trying to be mean; I'm just doing my part to clean up the internet from the people who don't care that they are seen as a self-centered, illiterate, child.

And yes, you have fixed these problems from your original posts, so I thank you. (The troll comment is still a little lame)

"Content is my #1 priority. Hands down. If Microsoft has it, good for them and they'll (regrettably) get my money." and "Though, I hope it's not Microsoft..."

Why do you display such angst about Microsoft's offerings? Is there something about their products/company that offend you? Or are you just in the "anyone but Microsoft" camp?

If it is all "about the game", then it shouldn't matter who the system vendor might be, just as you said in your closing remarks.

I'll buy whichever runs Metroid and Zelda.
Independant of pipes, threads, cells, etc.

OMG! the hype has hits the fan again.
Ya we'll see, we'll see. You guys can go ahead and debate another 10 hours straight everday for the rest of your life until the systems are 4 months out of production. Fan boys have been doing this for 20 years, no different now, i'm going back to my CURRENT systems.

It doesn't matter who makes it, I just don't like how Microsoft does business. I have a PC at home that has WinXP on it and I live with that. Just because they're around and making a lot of money, doesn't mean I can't be against the way they run things. They take advantage of the people who don't know a lot about computers and then don't really do anything to keep them safe. Also, they try their hardest to be a monopoly, yet they deny being one. If they thought people would still use IE and Media player if they weren't bundled, why don't they just have Windows a bare OS? That way, we can choose to use IE. That's why I hope it's not Microsoft. But, like I said, if they have better games, then I'm all for it. That's why I like Sony and Nintendo being in there. Competition is good, no matter what Microsoft says.

Ok, there are some real morons here.

The biggest moron is "sano" who said the PS3 would have 4 cell chips for 1 teraflop.

BS, the absolute MAX Sony would use is one cell, further... the likely scenario is that it may have fewer cores than the one presented (perhaps a cell with 4 or 6 cores instead of 8). This is simple ecomonics. The current cell is the same die size as the PS2's original EmotionEngine. Putting more than one of these things in the sony box will make it way too expensive to cell. (pun intended)

2. He also said something about Nvidia taking up cell space, or co-engineering the cell or something... dude, Nvidia has nothing to do with the cell... their contribution to the PS3 will be the same as ATI's to the NextBox... graphics chips. Chips that are very similar to their future desktop counter-parts.

As for these graphic differences... don't kid yourself errr, kids. The two consoles will be nearly identical in terms of REAL WORLD performance, meaning the differences one will notice will be similar to the differences in todays Xbox/PS2. Which is to say, not much... GranTurismo4 and ForazaMotorSport are about as equal looking as one can get, despite the fact that the XBOX is very slightly more powerful.

Expect much of the same in the next gen systems... buy the system with the best games, not the best hardware. In this, I would hope many of you would also explore Nintendo's Revolution.

I don't care who makes the console/games, I play them. I'm cheering on for innovation instead. The games don't get more fun because of better graphics. In the C64 days games where rated after how much fun it was and how good control method it had. Thats what matters, not how pretty it is.

Who are U, gamers or fanboys ???

Personally, I suspect that the amount and speed of RAM in the next generation of gaming consoles will be the biggest performance issue.

I don't care how fast the processor is, if you don't have the available RAM to run the game then processor speed won't matter. (Example: Doom3 and Half-Life 2 run much better with a full gig of RAM.) --Consoles aren't as RAM dependant as they are designed from the ground up for gaming and require less than a pc would, but still, it's very important.
Lack of RAM is one of the principle reasons that Halo and Halo 2 won't run on the PS2 (Well, other than MS owning the game). Ubisoft even had to edit the levels and lighting effects on Splinter Cell to get it to run on PS2. RAM affects how many enemies can be on screen, A.I., lighting, etc.
By today's standards, both machines are very powerful. I predict things like GPU speed, amount of RAM, RAM latency, etc will be the real determining factor so far as power is concerned. Sony can produce Cell processors all day long, but RAM costs $$ and I doubt they'll be willing to cough up the extra $ for that. They'll probably be content simply tying with Microsoft in that department.

In this situation, both the xbox2 and PS3 will have more than enough raw processing power to support almost any game they want. I'm also betting that Microsoft's XNA format will mean a much more efficient to use and program for machine. All the new pc games will have to use XNA as well (as Microsoft is phasing out DirectX)and there's even talk of the xbox2 controller plugging into a regular pc.

The PS3 will probably be more powerful. I mean, will release 1 year later; it *should* be more powerful. But I don't think it will make much of a difference. Both systems are very powerful and games will probably look equally incredible on both of them.

In Microsoft's defense though, they do have:

1. The best online service in the world.
2. The XNA platform. This will lead to xbox2 games running on PC. Microsoft has already stated this is one of their goals.

Should be interesting. For now, I'm an xbox fan. PS2 has nothing that can compare to halo 2 online, or the original Halo. Play through Halo on "Heroic" and you'll see what I mean.

Heck, nothing against PS2, but I even like Nintendo's games better.

"Also, they try their hardest to be a monopoly, yet they deny being one."

And Sony isn't trying to be a monopoly?

With a market cap of $35.23BUS, and interests in everything from CD players to CDs, this is more of a "The Clash of the Titans" battle than "David and Goliath".

First of all, I said that the nVidia using a Cell to carry their GPUs was a rumor. They won't be creating their own Cell, they will be making their GPU and then replacing the SPEs inside a Cell with it. BUT, it was just a rumor. It is possible, I never said it was happening.

As for it having 4 Cells, Sony rumored a while back the the PS3 could possibly hit 1tflop. That would indicate 4 Cells. I don't care how big it is or what the PS2 had, that's straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. And, because you probably wouldn't believe me, I did a little search. Here is the first website I looked at.

http://www.megagames.com/news/html/console/ps3detailsrevealed.shtml

And if you don't want to read it all, go to the 6th paragraph.

I'm not saying that all of this WILL happen, I'm just saying it's either a rumor or has its basis on fact.

I'm glad to see people talking about content being the top priority, or at least moving away from the "it's all about grahpics" argument.

Don't get me wrong, I do get into the tech specs on the next gen hardware, i just don't want to argue about whose better. All of the big 3 have some great technical innovations that are really starting to push chip design and innovation, which is a good thing for us the consumer. I think it's a good thing that they want to take these new technologies outside of the console. Maybe this will light a fire or at least inspire AMD and Intel to try something different with there PC CPU's instead of just baby stepping up current CPU models. Just a thought..

One issue that really needs to be addressed though is the fact that games are becoming so much more time consuming and expensive to produce. I've heard some talk about a price increase for next gen games. It makes sense, games costing more to produce sold at a static price point equal diminishing profit margins.

An area that really needs some inovation is in the development tools and middleware arena. If companies can get top notch tools, 3d engines, etc. This could really cut costs and deveopment time. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $60-$70 dollars a game. Thats just too steep for most people. I also think a price hike will result in more piracy of game software. The best way to combat piracy IMO, is a better,lower price point. Just another thought I had....

Sony might be up there with Microsoft, but they aren't the ones moving everyone out of a certain market and then making a sub-quality product that everyone almost HAS to use. My grandparents want a computer, they HAVE to use Windows. Even if I set up Redhat or something similar, my grandmother can barely open a folder that doesn't have a link on the desktop. Yes, Microsoft seem to think that she knows how to install Security patches. (They have gotten better with SP2, though) But they know how big of a hole IE is, but it's built into the explorer. The internet and the windowing enviornment should not be intertwined. Also, have you heard what they do to vendors? If a vendor signs a contract, they CANNOT sell anythign without windows or they get fined. (It might be different now, but I know it used to be that way)

I just don't like how Microsoft does business. Now, Sony might do things like that as well, but either A. I don't know about them, or B. it's not nearly as bad as microsoft.

Sony makes some decent products and I would rather buy something from them than Microsoft.

I love it when people make direct references between different chip designs and say "this one has more at a higher clockspeed, therefore it's faster."

G5s are fast chips, and cells are supposed to be fast too. They're both plenty powerful to play games that most people will want to play for the next 2-4 years.

The difference is the ease of development. If the cell is hard to write code for, it will flop. Might as well write the code in brainf*ck.

G5 isn't hard to code for. And, having played with dual-G5 machines, I can say that they're faster than anything I've used (including a dual 2ghz xeon I had for a job).

I would say wait until the games come out to say which one is going to be faster. Otherwise an average person would have a 50/50 chance of looking stupid. Seeing how some of the people posting sound like they make terrible arguments a lot, maybe you have more of a 75% chance of looking stupid.

Peace.

"I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $60-$70 dollars a game."

I would venture to guess you are probably not alone, but the price point of most first-release games is already at your lower threshold. If they are going to be *more* expensive, then you might see a move to a core-game, expansion-pack scenario like the PC world. That would allow them to build features into their games, but sell the more interesting "tricked-out" expansions for more profit.

The problem with having third party apps such as 3d engines and the like is that EVERY game will pretty much be the same. There won't be innovation. I understand the price point and I don't want to pay $60+ for a game either, but unless these companies find a better way to produce a game (ie. episodes instead of all at one maybe? Though, I don't like the idea of buying ANYTHING online that I wouldn't get a physical copy of... :cough:Steam/iTunes:cough: but I don't think handing out 1st party stuff like that would be very good for business. But, for the start up games, it might be a good idea. Get a game out there that is solid and enjoyable and then take the time to make something innovative. I guess there's plusses to both sides.

Terrbear...

I don't know who you're taking about, but I don't think anyone said that a faster CPU meant more Ghz. I know I said that flops would mean it could do more, because that is generally true. But look at the AMD and Intel chips. AMD has always been lower than Intel, Ghz-wise, and still has been able to cope.

I am, however, worried about how hard the PS3 will be to code for. They took out the cache, they took out a lot of control logic which does give the programmer more freedom, but also makes them have to do more work. If they have a good devkit that either shows the programmers how to do all this or builds it right into the compiler, then I don't see them having any problems. But, if they make you almost write assembly to get most of the code working, it might be tough.

Hmm, where to start. How about on cell numbers and cost. There are supposed to be four in a PS3, although that's just rumored, but it does seem plausible. Cost. Well, there have been several large facilities to pump out the cell chips, and they are supposed to be put in all sorts of devices, as has been pointed out. This should keep the cost of an individual chip down. Supposedly, producing a cell chip will be *MUCH* cheaper than producing x86's. And I'm gonna give Sony a certain amount of credit not to price themselves out of the market.

Sony does have, hands down, the best controller. It amazes me their design was so good, they didn't even change it from the PS1 to the PS2. Yeah, all the buttons became analog, but the basic feel is the same. Maybe MS will figure out how to make a good controller, I know there are hearing our complaints. The gamecube controller works great for games made for it, and generally is sub par for games on more than one system.

And to me, it is all about content, not graphics as well. I don't know who will come out ahead. I can't help but feel MS should have some dominace there, since the PC market is probably much better suited to XBox porting than PS porting. That aside, Nintendo is the only company that has a significant number of inhouse games that are very good for their system. But somehow, Sony ends up with all these great 3rd party games. They certain win right now, contentwise. But I think I know why - they have an overwhelming market share, wooing other developers to get a piece of that PS pie. If the next XBox can gain a larger market share, they will get more games, and some of those will be good. If the next XBox outperforms the next PS again, Sony will definitly take a hit for it though. If the PS hardware dominates the XBox though... MS is going to take a much larger hit.

And here's a prediction from me. MS is going to try and be first to market (and probably will be) thinking that is why their sales are behind the PS, but they will be wrong.

As fireduck said, Sony has built two HUGE fabs and has converted one (I believe) of IBMs into producing cells. Like I said before, they want to stick Cells in everything. I believe I also read somewhere that IBM will be making Servers and supercomputers with Cells before the PS3 hits shelves, which should also bring down the cost.

Home consoles, they be passé, folks. It's all about the PC now, beaming games to the TV when asked to, while others surf at the hub itself.

http://bzflag.org

"http://bzflag.org/"

Hey! I have a SGI workstation in the computer room that still has this game loaded on it.

It also runs DOOM 1.1.

It is now just a dumb terminal (for the most part).

The only people here who believe the cell will suck and that its not revolutionary are xbox fanboys and retards who have only read about it in regards to the PS3...wake up asshats...the cell processor is WAY bigger than the PS3...the cell is the future of all PC processors and WILL spank the Xbox..couple that with MS's stupid market decisions and I guarantee Sony comes out ahead again....those that said the original xbox with its modded P3 700 had better graphics than any pc game out at the time show their stupidity blatantly as NO game system to date has had better graphics than a pc with a top of the line video card...how fucking stupid can you be? a P3 700 is producing graphics that faster processors with BETTER graphics cards could do at that time...fuckwad shut up.

Anyone care to mention why it should be so hard to have backwards compatability from Xbox2 to Xbox? I thought the dev platform for all these games was based on D3D/DirectX anyway. Going from Nvidia to ATI should be a non-issue. The G5 class PPC proc. slated for XB2 should be MORE than capable of emulating a stinking celeron 733 and the textures and such can just be flipped to the graphics sub-system minus the emulation no? {disclaimer.. I don't even *pretend* to think I know anything about game coding}

ALl the hardware whoring speek is only useful to the top 2% (if that) of consoles purchased, to the end user, its all about the title availabilty. How many posters here have ever even modded a single console in their {probably short} lifetimes?

(1 Xbox, out of the box normal)
(1 Xbox, running linux just because I could)

--Drak

I don't know about backwards compatibility, drakonim. The thing is, it might be the same Graphics API, but the games were still compiled for the x86 platform. The PowerPC isn't x86 compatible. Thus why Windows doesn't run on a MAC. However, it isn't impossible. The Dual G5's could definetely emulate the x86 architecture, but most emulation software out there is slow. If they have made some kind of emulation for backwards compatibility, then hurray for them. But if I had to guess, I would say it won't be there.

As for the future of Cell... I hope it goes off to the races and takes the x86 out back and beats the shit out of it. The only reason x86 is still going strong is because it started early with a large market share. There have been better systems since then, but none of them stuck because of the x86 marketshare. Before the x86 could be ousted, they assimilated whatever their competitor had that was better and made it their own. The x86 architecture hasn't been revolutionary in a VERY long time.

If the Cell does do well, I at least want to see a competitor for x86. It can't hurt anything. Even if it doesn't hit big on the PC side of things, I don't think it'll go anywhere as it is a very good design for workstations and supercomputers. I could even see Apple switching over to it since it is based on the PowerPC architecture that the MAC uses. But Apple also likes having their own thing going... having other OS' that would also work on the MAC might turn them away.

No matter how powerfull the xbox2 is, as long as there's no 3rd party support from companies like namco, squareenix, polyphonydigital(gran turismo), etc; xbox2's chance on being number 1 is slim.

Wow, I am surprised people are arguing about all this. All the tech specs on the Cell, while impressive, are still theoretical. Nobody has seen Xbox 2 outside of M$. Can't we all just relax and see what ends up showing up?

I don't know about backwards compatibility, drakonim. The thing is, it might be the same Graphics API, but the games were still compiled for the x86 platform. The PowerPC isn't x86 compatible. Thus why Windows doesn't run on a MAC. However, it isn't impossible. The Dual G5's could definetely emulate the x86 architecture, but most emulation software out there is slow. If they have made some kind of emulation for backwards compatibility, then hurray for them. But if I had to guess, I would say it won't be there.

As for the future of Cell... I hope it goes off to the races and takes the x86 out back and beats the shit out of it. The only reason x86 is still going strong is because it started early with a large market share. There have been better systems since then, but none of them stuck because of the x86 marketshare. Before the x86 could be ousted, they assimilated whatever their competitor had that was better and made it their own. The x86 architecture hasn't been revolutionary in a VERY long time.

If the Cell does do well, I at least want to see a competitor for x86. It can't hurt anything. Even if it doesn't hit big on the PC side of things, I don't think it'll go anywhere as it is a very good design for workstations and supercomputers. I could even see Apple switching over to it since it is based on the PowerPC architecture that the MAC uses. But Apple also likes having their own thing going... having other OS' that would also work on the MAC might turn them away.

Jim, Why did you just copy what I said?

as for panthro - I intend to do that, but I am excited as to what the future holds for the Cell. I don't see much innovation coming for the Microsoft camp that is worthwhile to look at.

In response to NOSTRO:
You tell people to not post fanboy judgements, and then post one yourself. Idiot.

ok guys lets stop the friggin war and just say they should both combine with all the mix-ups controller wise ang graphic wise just to have any kind of fun you need millions of dollars so just pick a friggin system and stop complaining

Yet again, if you read the entire thread, you'll see that I (and someone else) pointed out that with this level of processing power, there probably won't be much difference in the Xbox2 and PS3 so far as what the games look like. Sure, the PS3 will probably wind up having more processing power, but it's kinda like having a lexus and a bmw. At 100 miles an hour, who cares?
--Also, the amount and type of RAM in each system is a VERY important factor no matter how fast the processor is.

Here are some things about the Xbox2 to consider:

1. The xbox 2 will easily have enough power to emulate the xbox 1 if microsoft chooses to do that. The difficulty comes in that Microsoft has to license certain Nvidia technology...that costs $$ that Microsoft probably doesn't want to spend. The new xbox uses ATI technology, the old xbox uses Nvidia. The cross platform (powerpc chips vs. x86 design) emulation is no problem with hardware this powerful.

2. Xbox 2 games will use the XNA development formant. As directX is being phased out with the next incarnation of Windows, all future pc games will run on XNA. Microsoft has already mentioned playing xbox games on PC and even plugging your xbox controller into your pc.
This could have huge consequences so far as console and game sales go. Developers could make one game that would run on both the pc and the xbox2. "Porting" games from xbox to pc or vice versa could be a thing of the past. The idea of ZERO to Little extra delopment time for making a game work on both pc and xbox will have game developers foaming at the mouth. Game developement costs would be cut, no more porting. We will see much more 3rd party support for xbox.

3. Xbox live is the best online gaming service by far. Ninetendo doesn't have a U.S. service, and the PS2 online service is junk compared to xbox live.

I'm sure both machines will be good, even if one is a bit more powerful than the other. The end user probably won't see much difference.

this goes out to all of you elitest spell checkers. do you think that becuz you can spell better than other posters that you're somehow better than them? i have trouble spelling sometimes. am i an idiot? fuck you! i can build a house with my bare hands, can you? i can repair my car, can you? i built my own computer, can you? i raise two kids by myself and one has a major diability, can you do that? wow you can spell good, that should help mankind. thank god for all the good spellers out there, saving forums all across the internet. p.s. bite me!

Here are the console sales up to the end of 2004. I doubt that microsoft will be able to make up the huge gap between it and sony.

Worldwide Hardware Sales (End of 2004)
PlayStation 2 - 81.39 million
Xbox - 19.9 million
GameCube - 18.03 million
Game Boy Advance - 65.74 million
Nintendo DS - 2.84 million
Sony PSP - 0.51 million
N-Gage - 1.3 million
PSone - 101.73 million

I did it the easy way. I picked a console and stuck with it, regardless of specs and games. I have always been a fan of Nintendo and do not plan on changing.

Out of all the consoles, they are the most creative. And because of that, they remain original in my eyes. PS3 and XBOX2 will basically be technological copycats.

But they don't have Mario....nor do they have Zelda.

im with darkiesmark nintendo IS the most creative, and makes GREAT games.Nintendo has ben around for 20 years so they know it better than any one else. SO SHUT UP ABOUT PS3 and XBOX 2

im with darkiesmark nintendo IS the most creative, and makes GREAT games.Nintendo has ben around for 20 years so they know it better than any one else.

SO SHUT UP ABOUT PS3 and XBOX 2

You guys are all a bunch of weenie wankers

Lol. How much money do they pay this gay to feed people this crap. Although I do support American companies this fact is concrete. The Japanese are technological masterminds. PS3 will dominate sales. As this man said it will be Xbox and the other guys. More like trash and the other guys. And to regard copying. Who opened up a PS2 and made it better. Huh! Oh Xbox sorry. It's also hard to say that Nintendo is falling behind in this race. Oh and Halo is overrated. There is nothing about it that sets it apart from other FPS. The graphics. Come on, i've seen better in Tom Clancy games.

Kaicik,

Obviously, you've never played through a full game of the original halo on heroic or legenday. The A.I. alone is better than anything in any other FPS. I own doom III and HL2 and neither of them are as fun as the original Halo. Although Doom III does have some really great moments.

I can't believe how long this comment thread is. LOL
So many of you guys are so hype about Xbox 2 & PS3.
From what I read PS3 will out perform Xbox 2 but we don't know that for sure because we don't know if all that power will hold up with other factors like console price or system stability. Anyway, you guys should chill already. The time hasn't come for bitching and braggin. Thanks :-)

I don't suppose that anyone wants to take a couple of seconds and break down the technical talk (ok ok i don't even know what a cell processor is) for those of us just tuning in?? I lerve me some video games, but I must admit i'm not especially technically-minded :)

LOL!!! HALO LOL!!!!

Look, all of you going on about the 'CELL'.
Apart from being a crap movie does anybody know exactly what it is? NO! YOU DONT! because it's a freakin buzz word that's why! In the old days us gamers didn't care what was in the machine, we just measured results i.e THE GAMES! Now we all have PC's and we know a bit about what CPU's GPU's, it's all common knowledge now. So Sony make up exiting names for stuff. Remember the PS2 was all hyped because of it's EMOTION ENGINE? (fancy word for processor which turned out to be pants!)well the 'CELL' is yet another fancy word for processor but idiots go for it! CALM DOWN GOD DAMMIT!

Out of the 3 current machines the ranking for technical ability and power goes Xbox, Cube then PS2. Yes, the PS2 is LAST PLACE! There is nothing on PS2 that even comes close to Metroid on the cube or Halo 2. Sony rely on loyality from owners of the PS1 (which of course was amazing in it's day considering the next best machine was the SNES)and they spend oads more than anybody else on advertising (which tends not to use in game footage, I wonder why???!!!)

Now, the PSP vs Nintendo DS, that may be different, i think Sony mayhave this one won!

me again,,,,,

I forgot to mention.

The main reason that the PS2 sells so much more than the others is this:

Consoles and games used to be for kids right?
Parents used to buy the console for the kids.

Now because technology is better, games are more realistic and so are now being rated like movies with age limits because the blood etc may look realistic or whatever. This was never possible on a SNES, (maybe apart from Mortal Kombat towards the end)

Because of this, older people are playing games (but not too old) I mean people in thier 20's who are still young enough to enjoy games but
these people also have money available to buy the machine so it's 100% up to them which one to go for.

In the 90's the parent had the final choice because it was thier money.

There is no denying that the PS2 is the coolest console. but what does that mean? They get installed in cars in Max Power magazine right! Why not a gamecube? because they are not cool.
The PS2 is a fashion accssesory, and that was always Sony's intention. Just look at thier marketing which is never really about the product at all, more about the whole 'image'.

The PS2 will lok better next to your plasma screen where as the xbox looks like an 80's video player but so what?

Most people I have come across have a PS2 so they can hav a quick bash at Pro Evo socer with thier mates but will then never play the game alone. And I admit it even sounds more grown up to ask if anybody wants to "come round and playon the playstation?" Can you imagine being in the pub and asking the lads if they want to play on the Nintendo? NO because it would sound completely gay!

But that's just it, somehow Sony have achieved this cool status where it's ok for a grown adult to have one when at the end of the ay it's a games machine like any other? it's all about the blody imageand marketing andI am sick of it to be honest. The N64 should have kicked PS1 ass but it's not all about the games these days, it's the whole package and what owning a console says about you as a person.

SAD REALY BUT THAT'S HOW IT IS!

Chrs, very true to what you say about it being used for fashion.

Lets all just keep quite and wait till the next Xbox and PS3 comes out. Its happened alot that A looks -much- better than B, yet B in real time beats the A in alot of place.

Also... 4-8 Cell CPU's? Are they using TEC to cool these beasts down? Like Body Bagger says, if its 50-80 watts per a CPU, thats around 200-640 watts of power. Thats ALOT more than the PS2. Same applies to the next Xbox, though I dont know how much watts the G5's use.

Also, whats the point having the fastest console if the games made for it doesnt perform?

I dont go against the next xbox or PS3. If the games are cool, I'll go in that direction. Being biased about a console isnt exactly... logical.

(I've never used Nintendo, thats why I wont comment about it, though I suspect its targetted at the younger audience, which I'm really not interested in.)

Chrs, very true to what you say about it being used for fashion.

Lets all just keep quite and wait till the next Xbox and PS3 comes out. Its happened alot that A looks -much- better than B, yet B in real time beats the A in alot of place.

Also... 4-8 Cell CPU's? Are they using TEC to cool these beasts down? Like Body Bagger says, if its 50-80 watts per a CPU, thats around 200-640 watts of power. Thats ALOT more than the PS2. Same applies to the next Xbox, though I dont know how much watts the G5's use.

Also, whats the point having the fastest console if the games made for it doesnt perform?

I dont go against the next xbox or PS3. If the games are cool, I'll go in that direction. Being biased about a console isnt exactly... logical.

(I've never used Nintendo, thats why I wont comment about it, though I suspect its targetted at the younger audience, which I'm really not interested in.)

Bleh, sorry for any spelling mistakes/grammer issues. It's late and I'm tired. x..x

The reason PS2 has the market share is because of the PS1's popularity and the fact that it came out first. Nobody was going to say--
"Well, let me wait a year for some crazy idea for a console from Microsoft with no proven track record for videogames. Instead, Ill just watch other people play new games with way better graphics than my PS1."
PS2 had a solid base going into things and no real competition (lets leave Nintendo out of things... they have been making horrible decisons since N64). As for exclusive games... PS2 has some great ones for sure, but so does Xbox. PS2 definately has more games than Xbox, but not necessarily more good games. Everyone claims Halo is the only good game series on the Xbox... thats just close minded and absurd. Have you never played Ninja Gaiden or any of Team Ninja's other games (ie Dead or Alive)? How about Panzer Dragoon Orta? Chronicles of Riddick? Fable? My rambling point here is that Xbox is just now hitting its stride. Its the new kid on the block thats growing up fast. Xbox 2 could potentially be a disaster if some poor decisions are made (ie no hard drive, no backward compatability), but have some faith not many companies can match Microsoft's ability to put out excellent second versions of products. And if Xbox2 does release first, it WILL sell well. For the same reasonsn PS2 sold well.

And for the record, why cant anyone else be excited about both systems... I sure as hell am!

One thing about console sales. Everyone talks so much about how many more consoles Sony has sold than Microsoft, however you have to remember one thing. Lots of people buy more than one system becasue they are made pretty cheap and die. Atleast 1/2 of the people I know that have PS2s are on their second one atm, plus there are alot of people that bought the new slimmer pstwo. So the sales dont mean as much as one would think. Im not trying to get down on Sony, I have every system so I can get any good game that comes out. Just making an observation.

Whether you want to admit it or not, graphics sell a console. Most buyers don't care what makes up a console, all they see is that "Game 1" looks better on "Console A" than it does on "Console B".

From what I have seen, (and this is hard for me to say considering how much I hate ATI) the Xbox 2's video card will out perform the PS3's.

Microsoft has been spending way more money on the Xbox 2 than Sony has on the PS3. Microsoft is determined to beat Sony and they know that graphics will help sell. With all the money they have, I'm sure Microsoft will use it to enable ATI to make a fantastic custom Radeon Card.

I doubt that this "cell" will be used in any system soon. It would probably crash too often, and the language would be crazy, but if it will be used, then i hope liquid nitrogen is included.

I doubt that this "cell" will be used in any system soon. It would probably crash too often, and the language would be crazy, but if it will be used, then i hope liquid nitrogen is included.

I hope you get the joke...Badooom Chshhhhh

dude, just because a system has a better processor doesn't mean that the games are necessesarily better...it all comes down to the games because, honestly, nobody would buy a system based on performance alone. Without good games the cosole will suck anyway. Personally, I don't care what all the benchmarks are and all that Gpu/Cpu crap at all. You won't be thinkin "Wow, this graphics processor is just swell, if I do say so myself!" No, you'll be thinking, "wow, this is a great game!" Why? Because that's what the PS3 and XboX2 are designed for, not as ground-breaking computers...

and by the way, i don't care if i misspelled anything because i'm trying to convey information, not write a fucking college term-paper, you uber-critical bastards

hi, my name is bill gates, XBOX2 will Annihilate any competition, i am the richest man on Earth, i just suport xbox to make Sony look bad, i will include windows longhorn as part of a home entertainement with capabilities to connect to windows longhorn in 2006-2007, remember this, money make the world go arround, and bill gates has the money

hi, my name is bill gates, XBOX2 will Annihilate any competition, i am the richest man on Earth, i just suport xbox to make Sony look bad, i will include windows longhorn as part of a home entertainement with capabilities to connect to windows longhorn in 2006-2007, remember this, money make the world go arround, and bill gates has the money

hi, my name is bill gates, XBOX2 will Annihilate any competition, i am the richest man on Earth, i just suport xbox to make Sony look bad, i will include windows longhorn as part of a home entertainement with capabilities to connect to windows longhorn in 2006-2007, remember this, money make the world go arround, and bill gates has the money

Xbox 2 will easily be able to emulate the power of the classic Xbox. Classic Xbox has a 700mhz x86 processor, the Xbox 2 *has* multiple modified Power PC G5 processors. Anyone who has used a dual G5 system for some CPU-intensive projects knows that the system is much more powerful than anything else will/could be for quite a while.

Having 4-8 cell processors is unreasonable for a number of reasons. I'll list a few.

1. Cooling and power consumption. When you have anywhere from 160 - 320 watts JUST for your CPU(s), you have to have MASSIVE cooling systems that just would not be reasonable for a console system. If you though the Xbox was huge and loud, just wait untill the PS3 comes out. . .

2. There is no way that they could push out the speeds they claim to have. There is no RAM, GPU, or FSB technology that would support 8 processors pushing out 4.8ghz a peice that is cheap enough for your average consumer. Look up any renderbox or server that has half that power and you will see that it would cost you nearly 15,000$ for the machine. I don't see any one paying that much for a console.

Yep, the cooling must be pretty big. Intel P4's do around 130watt I think. The cooling needed for them is loud, even though you could get an aftermarket cooler for P4 thats quieter, its usually bigger aswell, but thats not the point.

DrunkenBoxer has a good example about Halo. I really didnt enjoy it compared to its hype. Panzer Dragoon Orta is cool :)

So yea, most of the time, it all comes to the games. The PS series has had a massive grounding, so naturally its gonna sell more than the xbox 2 (or will it?)

About backwards compatablity, jeeesh... I dunno about that. Nvidia did the gpu for the Xbox 1, ATI doing the GPU for the xbox 2 (And a pretty damn good GPU at that). Would this still allow me to play my xbox games on xbox 2? :/ For some reason, I kinda doubt it, but I hope it doesnt happen.

*YAAWN* ...sigh...

OK, I really shouldn't be wasting my time these crazy fan boys slamming every system that isn't their favourite... but here are the facts.

1. Xbox is the most powerful of the current consoles, followed by GameCube then PS2... *because* PS2 launched almost a year earlier. Duh.

2. Even with the power difference, any developer can make pretty much the same game on ANY of these 3 systems.

3. In the next gen systems, the power *should* reverse. This time the PS3 *should* be the most powerful, followed by the Nextbox. Why? Again, because the Nextbox will be out for a YEAR before Sony launches. The PS3 better damn well be more powerful.

4. No details have been released about Nvidia's PS3 Graphics core, so NO speculation there. Few details (possibly false) have been leaked about ATI's core for the NextBox. I think it's safe to assume they will be fairly close in power based on past competitions. (X800 series vs. 6800 series is pretty much a wash for example.)

5. Much more info has been released about the cpu's. The PS3 will have ONLY ONE cell with 4-8 cores. (Not 2 or 4 cells) for a peak GFLOP rating of about 128-256. However attaining efficiency with the very complicated cell will take a long time. Don't expect greater than 50% of it's peak to be reached for a couple years. The Nextbox CPU on the other-hand is relatively less advanced, but will also be easier to program for. Rumour is it will be a three-cored G5 variant CPU.

6. Revolution. Almost nothing but shadows and smoke are known about this system. But I will wager this... the graphics will be comparable. The input will innovative. The price will be far cheaper. And it will still come in third in sales. I, however, will be buying one anyway... if the above holds true at launch.

Oh yeah, and one more tidbit. The PS3 will be the most expensive console... by alot.

What is so great about the Cell processor? From an engineering and programming standpoint, it's a disaster. Sure, it's fast and performs well, but with all of these "layers" they've put into it, it makes it extremely difficult to utilize. M$ is focusing on the software this time around. That's what sells consoles. The Cell processor is going to be the downfall of the PS3 because the programmers are going to have such a hassle utilizing it. Remember when everyone made the switch to disc format and Nintendo stayed the course with the cartridge...Nintendo lost developers because it was harder to put the games on cartridge. M$ is going to be on top with this next-gen of consoles because they're so gun-ho about software.

Cell processor, 8086, who cares... i thought video games were meant to be about having fun? and yet everyone wants to argue about the damn things specs, that would have been so funny to see back when the nes came out.. Man the new 4mhz processor kicks ass :@ who bloody cares, wait till the thing comes out, and get it to enjoy it n get over the stupid arguments, if ya like it, play it, if ya dont do somethin else :)

Cell processor, 8086, who cares... i thought video games were meant to be about having fun? and yet everyone wants to argue about the damn things specs, that would have been so funny to see back when the nes came out.. Man the new 4mhz processor kicks ass :@ who bloody cares, wait till the thing comes out, and get it to enjoy it n get over the stupid arguments, if ya like it, play it, if ya dont do somethin else :)

MAn, I am not sure about all the rambling about the XBox 2's backwards compatibility... XBox 1 is basically just a PIII computer, running an uber modified and locked down version of Win2K. So, writing games for it should be closely related to writing games for the PC... which doesn't care what video card you use. Maybe I am misinformed, but if I install Doom3 on my PC, and switch out my nVidia 6800GT for an ATi card, I won't have any trouble. Perhaps the same applies to the GPU in the XBox 2.
Now, the CPU difference will be a challenge. I know you can install Mac OSX on a virtual setup, like running PearPC, but the speed definitely pays the price. Something like 1:500, which is to say that if you have a x86 CPU running at 500 mhz, it will perform as a Power PC CPU at 1 mhz. But, then again, how hard would it be to include a celeron CPU to handle backwards compatibility?

Ps2 and xbox are like a ford Crown Victorya and a cadillac Devile. A crown is good but a devile is better.

When the hell can I buy one of these badboys?

Yeah when the fuck are they gonna be released?!?!

i think PS3 isn't even going to be able to be mentioned in the same breath as xBox 2. PS2 and pS1 both have like 300 games, about 13 of them good...xBox on the other hand, has like 90 but about 75 are good. So wut is more important? A lot of crappy games or some good games?

In the perspective of who will out perform each other, it's questionable....tables seem to be in the favors of PS3 packing a little more punch. But at the same token no one knows what MS will throw on the table. You can say that the PS3's cell will be great, and that may be true...but we do not know the exact truth of MS plans, we just know leaked rumors. Also it seems as the two have learned from each other...as PS3 seems to be making a more of XBOX approach, and XBOX2 seems to be taking the PS2 approach. If this is true, then MS would be the one to win, like Sony did with the PS2....correct, or incorrect??

I don't think there is any bigger Xbox fan out there than me, however I'm afraid that the very first poster made the best point. The Xbox is superior to the PS2 and gamecube, technically! That's why I bought one, that's why it's with my high def.. 5.1 surround system, and that's why I love it!!!

If microsft made the exact same console Sony did, exactly the same technically , I don't know which one I would pick....

Lorenzo has a valid point.If the consoles were the same, it would be a tough decision on which one to choose. Personally I'm an Xbox fan over PS2. But I think in the end even if PS3 makes a more powerful console than MS...I would still choose MS, because I'm to biased to get a PS3. Both have as to what seems good approaches and bad approaches into the next console war. But I've thought about it...with what I said before, I think MS is paying there cards right over sony this this. MS has a release date about a half of a year earlier than sony. Also they plan to release with over 40 titles, the most launched titles in console history. Another thing is they may be planning to release 3 different versions of the Xbox2. 2 of them in the 2005 release. One being smaller in size without a hard drive, and one with a hard drive. The third would be slated to release in 2006 with the other consoles, this one being the Xbox2 PC. Another thing is that MS plans to release Halo3 (MS "Saving Grace") the same day as the PS3. All of this stuff (rumors) could come true, and if they do...I don't see Sony competing very well.

Lorenzo has a valid point.If the consoles were the same, it would be a tough decision on which one to choose. Personally I'm an Xbox fan over PS2. But I think in the end even if PS3 makes a more powerful console than MS...I would still choose MS, because I'm to biased to get a PS3. Both have as to what seems good approaches and bad approaches into the next console war. But I've thought about it...with what I said before, I think MS is paying there cards right over sony this this. MS has a release date about a half of a year earlier than sony. Also they plan to release with over 40 titles, the most launched titles in console history. Another thing is they may be planning to release 3 different versions of the Xbox2. 2 of them in the 2005 release. One being smaller in size without a hard drive, and one with a hard drive. The third would be slated to release in 2006 with the other consoles, this one being the Xbox2 PC. Another thing is that MS plans to release Halo3 (MS "Saving Grace") the same day as the PS3. All of this stuff (rumors) could come true, and if they do...I don't see Sony competing very well.

microsoft xbox holds the world record for most powerful games console. the xbox beat ps2 and the 'nextbox' will beat ps3. The games are even better. if you dont believe me check out elder scrolls IV oblivion flawless!

In my opinion..........PS3 sucks, but who am I to say. Just wait and see

WHO CARES!!! Look at all these stupid speculative arguments!! Hey, I've got an idea.... Use the time you're wasting researching and writing these notes to get a job and earn some $$$ then you'll have enough $$$ to GET OFF THE WALLET AND BUY BOTH!! Duhhhh

There is no way Xbox will ever be the best, all they have is HElo going for them sony has so many more ill games in there line up Dont get me wrong Xbox is ok i like helo but i played all the other games for it and they have the graphics but the games are just so stupid i can go on for like a day to name all the garbage games but like i waz saying sony's the best And one more thing i think PS one is better then Xbox but i dont know that's just what i think

Why dont u just shut the hell up because you cant even spell HALO for starters.....of course xbox 2 will be better....like xbox is at the moment better than ps2 in everyway....xbox rules over all...the games are better and its far better designed than ps2...u ps2 followers are in denial and always have been!

Why dont u just shut the hell up because you cant even spell HALO for starters.....of course xbox 2 will be better....like xbox is at the moment better than ps2 in everyway....xbox rules over all...the games are better and its far better designed than ps2...u ps2 followers are in denial and always have been!

Why dont u just shut the hell up because you cant even spell HALO for starters.....of course xbox 2 will be better....like xbox is at the moment better than ps2 in everyway....xbox rules over all...the games are better and its far better designed than ps2...u ps2 followers are in denial and always have been!

Why dont u just shut the hell up because you cant even spell HALO for starters.....of course xbox 2 will be better....like xbox is at the moment better than ps2 in everyway....xbox rules over all...the games are better and its far better designed than ps2...u ps2 followers are in denial and always have been!

Why do you people argue over this crap. You are all fans of games, and if you have a job it isn't going to break the bank to own more than one system. They've been priced at $99-$149 for the last two years. The time you waste on here could be spent playing great games regardless of who they're made by.
j.drizzle you must be high if you think the ps2 controler is the best ever made. Maybe for THPS, but try to play any FPS with one, the ergonomics are terrible. Xbox controllers analog sticks are perfectly placed. It may not make the keyboard and mouse crowd happy, but it is as good as it gets on a console.

i don't have much negative to say about any of the consoles out right now. each company has their advantages - MS has a hard drive (perfect for sports games which take up a ton of memory on a memory card), Sony has the corner on RPGs and racing games and Nintendo has a slew of first-party characters in games that are a ton of fun to play.

i'd be suprised if the next-gen consoles turned out much different. each one will wind up having its own advantages over the others.

Too much arguing about the hardware.

Why do you have a console? Any console? To play games, right?

What makes the game good? The theme, genre and gameplay. Whichever console maker has the best 'idea' men and development group will come out on top.

You people who have dedicated what seems to be hours ranting about one piece of technology vice another, have just become sheep and are doing exactly what the mfg's want you to do...increasing the hype and pimping their products before you even know whay they can do.

I am a huge halo 2 PLayer from wisconsin I think I'm the only one that owns both HALO'S and a multi link sytem up here it gets frustrating to be the greatest player in barnes but what ever I'm just pumped up about the talk of xbox 2 and HALO 3 it's going to be pimptastic man

microsof tis designing their own chip thats what i hear. Good stuff

Bam has upped the ante way over the bounds of sanity and gravity for the new season of Viva La Bam. Whether Bam and Clan are overseas or in their backyard, watch out--this season is mindless and maniacal.

Hey guys, just remember that you should live your life the way you want to and don't let the judgment of others bring you down. Live every day like it is your last! It was the most amazing experience of my life. I think that fans will be happy with the season, but they should just tune in.

Ok I know a thing or two about multi processing; each processor in a unit will run at the same clock speed, in the case of the Cell 4.6Ghz. If it has 8 cells, which would be impressive, it will be nightmare to write stable code. Also it is a widely know fact that, that’s the more processors you have the more the speed drops off, for example a two 2Ghz CPUs won’t run combined at 4Ghz, thy will probably run at 3.95Ghz. Over eight CPUs it would lose over 0.40Ghz, as the drop off is exponential. Now good programming and hardware can reduce this margin and drop off. However the 1st gen Cell will not have established architecture, so I expect this drop off to be considerable, probably in the region of 15% Speed lose with a 2nd cell, and may even reach up to a 50% speed loss over all 8. This can only be reduced by longer term development and experimentation.

This means that the 8 cells might only be running at 50% of their potential, factor in the increased complexity of programming, bandwidth issues, and proprietary formats. I think Sony might have more than a few teething problems. The PS1 suffered from many the PS2 suffered from a few less, but I think if Sony rushes the PS3 they could be in for a recall or two. That said running 10 instructions per cycle is good, however remember that if you factor in whatever the power drop off is then you might find this fables figures to be nothing more than theoretical pipe dreams.

Another thing to look at is the single close speed, if you’re running one thread which uses 100% of a Cells power and another which only uses 25%. Therefore every 1 instruction processed by the cell running at 25%, the other will have run 4. This means the 8 Cell chip will probably never run ay 100% of it theoretical speed. The best guess I can give is it on average run at 33% capacity, because if you change the function of a cell to use up those wasted instructions you also need to swap out all the Cells registers and cache, this is a very time consuming task. So in real terms if one Cell is only running 1 cycle for every 4 of another, that cell is only using 25% of its capacity.

So factor these many CPU issues together, the 33% average utilisation, and an estimated 50% drop off, the theoretical speed of 1 TFlop will look more like 165 Gflops. The word to look at are theoretical this means you have to utilise all the CPU’s at 100% (this never happens on any system.), and have 0 power drop off (This has never been achieved, and I don’t think the cell will do it either).

All in all, the Cell looks fantastic theoretically, but then so do Warp drives, teleportors and food replicators.

Yes the X-box 2 will suffer similar problems but to a lesser extent, for one they are using an established architecture, this means much of the power drop off will be gone, leaving only a small margin. And from what I can tell the 3 CPU G5 is actually 3 separate cores, this cut down on heat and means fabrication is cheap.

Oh and no one has mentioned RISC, this mean that per clock cycle the CPU can actually run two instructions, rather that the Cells one instruction per CPU per cycle. This give the X-box 6 instruction per cycle, yes it’s not the 10 of the Cell, but remember the Cell will have problems with unimplementable speed. Once you factor this in The X-box to looks like it could peak on the performance.

I know people are saying the X-box 2 only has 2 CPU’s this is actually wrong, The development kits only have 2 CPU’s, and that’s because that it cuts down on cost, for kit which might cost around $10,000.

Tried an tested technology means you have a wider test based to work form so the optimisation can be that much better. On proprietary technology, you don’t have large test base so you cannot optimise as well. This has been seen with the emotion engine, it looks fantastic on paper an in theory but in practical use it is crap. I fear the same will be said about the Cell, it will look fantastic on paper but in practicality it will be crap.

One other think about RISC systems, they are unbelievably fast, if anyone ever owned an Acorn Archimedes, they will know what I mean, Zarch, later to be know as Virus on other platforms, was completely pro