quote: Original post by theRaskell
Ah zedzeek... how exactly did you come about those calculations?
[/qoute]
As someone who developed for the PS2, I can tell you this: The PS2 can, in theory, do 6.2 billion operations per second. The correctness of this should not even be under discussion. I believe the pentium III 733 cannot even reach a billion.

Which of those consoles are using CISC cpus or RISC cpus?

I believe all up till the XBOX used RISC. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

quote:
Which is more efficient at processing 32 bit numbers, a 32 bit cpu or a 128 bit cpu? (Key word in that question is efficient) Bottom line is numerical comparisons don't mean squat.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but the key to the PS2 floating point performance is by using 128 bit numbers to represent 4 32 bit floats packed together.

quote:
The ability of the cpu to efficiently process, the ability of the development tools to create efficient and cpu friendly code, the power and abilities of all the periphal components, all those makes instructions per second stats completely worthless. And availability and quality of games/software for the given system makes everything else completely worthless.

Well put.

Mike

Edited by - Vetinari on September 12, 2000 10:35:46 AM

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Well, let''s see. The Playstation2''s 128-bit vector units can multiply eight floats(four pairs) AND two 16-bit ints all in one(!) cycle. The Dolphin''s custom 128-bit PPC will do two floating point operations in one cycle. What can the PIII do in one cycle?

The pIII can do the exact same thing. pIII has 128 bit simd instructions which allow processing of multiple floating point values at once. Amd has 3dNow which provides simular advantages.

-cmaker

128bits cpu is better (to compare to 32bits) for this:
1) Speed for calculate numbers major to 32 bits.
2) May point for many memory blocks.
3) May use a bigs instruction at once. But it is not common, because this let to use a special architecture.

128 bits cpu is not good because:
1) It is expensive
2) Many code is optimized for 32 bits.
3) You don''t use a big memory more that 32 bits. (4096 gigas), but it may be util for fixed-memory (such a harddisk)

There is not possible to send a many instruction in the next way (for 128 bits machine):

1 step : Ins1 Ins2 Ins3 Ins4
2 step : Ins5 Ins6 Ins7 Ins8

(where Ins1..4 is a 32 bits instruction)

But it is possible
1 step :Ins1Part1 Ins1Part2 .. ..
2 step :Ins2Part1 Ins2Part2 .. ..
3 step :Ins3 .. .. ..
(where Ins1 is a instruction in 32 bits, and in this sample, this consist in two parts)


If may be available to choice the bits of cpu for a computer-pc, then if you choice 32 bits, 64 bits or 128 bits, the speed may be the same.. (16 bits may not work)


In the old days (<1980), there are some computer that used 128 bits... this have to discontinued because this is very expensive and even incompatible.


-eng3d.softhome.net-

quote:
Vetinari:
Gaiiden - when you say something like this :

Quote Gaiiden:
The console OS will have to do nothing more than support the hardware in the box as well as the DirectX. That's it, nothing else.
--------------------------------------------------------------

You should have more to back it up than some story that really has nothing to do with a clean OS. You could be right, but pleaes have more to go on next time you start stating opinion as facts in a demeaning way.

Like what? Cold hard facts that the OS won't need to support anything else? I was just responding to the post saying that the major bugs in Windows came from all the hardware conflict issues, which in truth can be a pain. But when you design an operating system for a console, how hard is it to get it to fully comply to just the hardware in the box? True, additional components like third party add ons and such may cause conflicts, but initially, the OS (for lack of a better word, may I point out) should be extremely clean. How many hardware problems have you had with Playstation or N64? I haven't had any. So I simply stated that hardware conflicts should not be an issue in any OS bugs, that's all. Better?

quote:
Quote Gaiiden:
I still think you people are treating the XBox as more than a game console, more like a mini-PC, which its NOT.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Vetinari:
I think it's very understandable why some people are confused. MS is marketing this thing as more than a console. I have read articles that said this thing will have a browser and other apps; although how much truth is there I don't know. Every time I read about it (especially here) I get evangalistic BS, half-truths, or the specs of everyting but the graphics card (which isn't even created yet)

This is the fault of short-sightedness, not mine. People have let themselves be twisted around by rumors and odd facts. There's just no way Microsoft could pull off a PC/console hybrid system. Why would they want to compete with themselves?? If they put out a console that had PC qualities, they'd lose sales in the PC dept. The console they want is just that, a console. This way they can market PC and XBox games seperatly, meaning more profits, even if it's the same title. Sorry, but I think this is all just common sense kicking in. Just because a PC company is making a console doesn't mean it'll be like a PC.

quote:
Gaiiden:
If you hate MS so much just don't get the XBox, what's the big deal?

Ok, this was a jab. I guess I was caught up in the whole Linux issue. To tell the truth, I don't use many online sources for gaming info. I mainly stick to the mags and a few sites I've learned to trust, so any rumors that have been spreading have not reached my ears. As far as I know, the XBox is a simple console beefed up to match the competition - and that brings out one last point. Since the XBox isn't meant to be like a PC, why should it compete with a PC?? That's not the target market right? Microsoft is aiming at the console market, so all you people complaining about how outdated the XBox will be when it comes out, you're wrong - well, sorta. It WILL be outdated compared to a PC, but again, that's not what it's trying to conquer. It WON'T be outdated compared to the other consoles, which is what microsoft wants.



==============================
\\// live long and prosper; \||/ die short and rot.
==============================

Edited by - Gaiiden on September 12, 2000 4:39:50 PM

Edited by - Gaiiden on September 12, 2000 4:44:04 PM

quote:
Like what? Cold hard facts that the OS won''t need to support anything else? ...

I don''t mean to sound insulting, but if you actually went back and read Evaclear''s first post (which is the one you are refering to) you would see how stupid you sound here. Nobody ever said that XBox will have OS/hardware conflicts or even implied it. You did, however, claim that the OS will ONLY support the hardware. That''s what I was talking about and disagreeing with.

quote:
There''s just no way Microsoft could pull off a PC/console hybrid system. Why would they want to compete with themselves?? ...

Well, last time I checked, MS is not making any money off their browser. Not to mention that most consumers are turned off to doing work on a gaming machine.

quote:
If they put out a console that had PC qualities, they''d lose sales in the PC dept. The console they want is just that, a console. This way they can market PC and XBox games seperatly, meaning more profits, even if it''s the same title. Sorry, but I think this is all just common sense kicking in. Just because a PC company is making a console doesn''t mean it''ll be like a PC.

Sorry, but the XBox DOES have PC qualities. A similar dev environment, a hardrive, intel chip w/ added graphic chip and an OS however stripped down. These are all PC qualities.

quote:
Ok, this was a jab. I guess I was caught up in the whole Linux issue. To tell the truth, I don''t use many online sources for gaming info. I mainly stick to the mags and a few sites I''ve learned to trust, so any rumors that have been spreading have not reached my ears. As far as I know, the XBox is a simple console beefed up to match the competition - and that brings out one last point. Since the XBox isn''t meant to be like a PC, why should it compete with a PC??

Check out this article: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/08/29/xbox/index.html. Predecting the death of the PC as a gaming platform. So, once again, your opinion is not the only one, even if it is ''common sense''. I dont really agree at all with that article though, but the PC games business. But I do agree (from the article) that the XBox will compete directly with the PC gaming industry which MS is a part of. So yes, they will be competing with themselves.

quote:
That''s not the target market right? Microsoft is aiming at the console market, so all you people complaining about how outdated the XBox will be when it comes out, you''re wrong - well, sorta. It WILL be outdated compared to a PC, but again, that''s not what it''s trying to conquer. It WON''T be outdated compared to the other consoles, which is what microsoft wants.

I''m done arguing system specs; I agree with theRascall on this point, system specs don''t make great games, period.

I would like to discuss the hardrive in the XBox a bit more though, since it is what really makes the XBox stand apart (not necessarily above) the rest of the consoles.
Some obvious advantages are being able to save games to the HD, loading games and not having to use the DVD (unlikely), and room for bug patches (is it really an advantage?).
Disadvantes inlcude: need OS support for managing HD, have to spend time managing the HD, HDs are not the most reliable component of PCs (I have had more than one crash), and wear out relatively fast.
If anyone has anything to add on the HD, please do. MS keeps hyping the fact that it has a HD w/o really saying what it will be used for. In my opinion, the disadvantages outwiegh the advantages. Who wants to manage a HD on a console? Simplicity has been the key to console''s success.


Mike

I read that article(tried to look at it as objectively as possible before throwing up), and although it had some good points (PC''s are extremely unreliable, configs different) it showed some utter stupidity. Really:

1) You dont have to program for every different Video card, well, I dont mean to start a DX verse OGL war, but honestly, OGL is much more card independant, and will work on all cards that implement it correctly.

2) They had absolutely very little knowledge about Linux, yet they critisize it.


Maybe so, but no one appears to be placing any bets yet. "Even without the Xbox," says Old Man Murray''s Erik, apparently oblivious to the apostasy involved, "Microsoft''s done more for me as a game player than [Linux creator] Linus Torvalds ever has. Or ever will. If the revolution involves me having to figure out how to recompile my kernel, count me right the fuck out."


3) They are forgetting, MS never releases bug free things the first, second, nor third times.

as for the ''all hail MS'' attitude, as Bugs Bunny would say:
"They don''t know MS very well...."

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

ImmaGNUman - Don''t get me wrong, I was just as sickened by most of that article just as you. I could spend days ripping most of it apart.

I brought it in for three reasons: to show that people have different opinions, to show that MS is competing against itself, and that both the media and MS are marketing the XBox as more than just a console.

Mike

Personally I think the XBox is a great idea, hey, maybe it will replace the humble PC? Add USB and make it compatible with the new Universal driver scheme (very good idea) so whatever u plug into it, its INSTANTLY compatible, no driver installation, no rebooting...cool. Of course new types of devices will come out all the time, but that would be just a matter of downloading the new BIOS or the new universal device module...

Im sick of loading Windows xx, installing a new program or driver, and having it crash leaving me with a nice blue screen for me to look at. Windows 2000 is a bit more stable, but it loads and shutsdown way too slow...What is it doing during shutdown? What happens when Windows whistler (for 64bit CPU''s) comes out? Crash...hang...reboot... Its time for a change. Microsoft have to scrap the current Windows cores and start fresh starting with 64bit, and have an emulator to emulate current 32bit applications, and when 32bit apps disappear, so does the emulator, so we are left with a good-solid-stable OS core. Linux is stable, but not organized. There are literally hundreds of config files scattered all over the hard disk, programs need other programs to run, and the unix command line is very outdated and very un-userfriendly... forget that.

Our problem solver...the XBox. It will *hopefully* have a stable, straight foward operating system (WITHOUT INTERNET EXPLORER!!!) based on a universal driver system (since the hardware cannot be changed) and when the XBox needs to be replaced, a new XBox will come out that will be faster, but will use the same drivers as the previous XBox, keeping it stable.
Want to use it for a server? easy...plug in the Network module, install the server application..hey presto...

Ok this has gone on long enouph! The XBox will most likely kick mad booty! I''m no M$ groupy, but what makes everyone think that M$ would put some half hearted OS in the XBox. Windows sucked so bad because it had no competition and it was the first. Since micro$oft is going against $ony and Nintendo (and others) then it has to come out swinging and it has the advantages of knowing what goes and what doesn''t...I''m sure Billy recognized this and is putting more money than anyone of you will ever see into it. As for having an OS in the system that supports Direct X that will be great! Why waist the time to learn the Other SDKs when we can get production moving and be making money on our third game when a $ony developer is still working on their first! (exageration) I''m sure that the version of DirectX that the XBox supports will be nothing like the version of Direct X that our pcs support. Think about it...To get maximum performance out of their system Micro$oft is probably just writting to the hardware with the ''XBox''s Direct X''...it looks the same to us...no one would notice the difference. At least that is my theory...and if M$ has not realized this yet maybe they should have! come on this is basic stuff here...direct X is slower...on average...than 3dfx drivers and glide drivers because it is not hardware specific. Hey let''s make it hardware specific and that is the solution to all our problems.

P.S.Come on I''m almost tired (Actualy I am tired) of reading about how this company did this and this company did that...who cares if some faceless company is only out to make money! If you don''t like it then don''t buy their products! (that was my thought of the day)


"If I wanted to hear the pitter patter of little feet I would put shoes on my cat!"- One Great Programmer (Garret Foster)

quote: Original post by ImmaGNUman

I read that article(tried to look at it as objectively as possible before throwing up), and although it had some good points (PC''s are extremely unreliable, configs different) it showed some utter stupidity. Really:

1) You dont have to program for every different Video card, well, I dont mean to start a DX verse OGL war, but honestly, OGL is much more card independant, and will work on all cards that implement it correctly.

2) They had absolutely very little knowledge about Linux, yet they critisize it.


Maybe so, but no one appears to be placing any bets yet. "Even without the Xbox," says Old Man Murray''s Erik, apparently oblivious to the apostasy involved, "Microsoft''s done more for me as a game player than [Linux creator] Linus Torvalds ever has. Or ever will. If the revolution involves me having to figure out how to recompile my kernel, count me right the fuck out."


3) They are forgetting, MS never releases bug free things the first, second, nor third times.

as for the ''all hail MS'' attitude, as Bugs Bunny would say:
"They don''t know MS very well...."

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

I thought the article was extremely good and the information was valid as far as i''m concerned. I''m glad i read it.

1) different video cards have different features and behaviors. if you want to utalize the features of every video card you have to query the current capabilities and write code based on the various combinations of capabilities any given video card can have if you want an optimal game. even when this is done, there is no guarentee that your code will work on any given video card just because you used directx or opengl to program it. this is the problem.

2) i have very little knowledge about linux. my only critisism is that there really isn''t that much of a market or interest for it when it comes to playing games. also, people slam windows all the time. This slam on linux is equally legit. I can''t see how it can be derived that he has no knowlege about linux from this statement.

3) this is unfair for 2 reasons. 1) any company can make buggy products, and has. and 2)creating an os to run on a fixed set of hardware (built by other companies) is completely different than building a full blown operating system to run on several machines.

btw, The "They" you speek of was just several people in the industry with their opinions. "They" have no idea they are a "They".

-cmaker