PS3 specs revealed

Post by **Sparkfist** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:09 pm

Anonymous wrote:I read LEM far more than you do. Bus width does not make a 64-bit processor, duh. Or do you think the Pentium 1 is a 64-bit chip?

And PPC/x86 are only two out of *many* cpu architectures. N64 was MIPS, after all. And the first desktop 64-bit CPU was Sun's UltraSparc, way back when.

Ok look if you had read what the link said it was and here's a qoute "Apple went beyond crippling the 64-bit CPU on a 32-bit data bus -- way beyond that." Ok I know that says 64bit CPU so saying that bus doesnt make it you right! The Power Mac 5200 sucked as a result of having to use a 32bit bus, making it really slower then its predessor.

As for the comment of PPC and X84 wow, big deal we know that other CPUs exsist. But for the most part non have be so widely used a those two, and granted PPC isnt that used as it only was in Apple's computers and IBM's servers. And MIPS, so what does that make it invalide? I guess we can call the PS2's CPU not the true first commerial 128bit.

Now if you want to hide like a little child behind that guest mask go ahead. The rest of us are going to talk and discuss, without the stupid ananimaty some guest use. Finnally dont post again we know your a damn troll by now.

HK-47 · Post by **HK-47** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:37 pm

Anonymous wrote:I read LEM far more than you do. Bus width does not make a 64-bit processor, duh. Or do you think the Pentium 1 is a 64-bit chip?

And PPC/x86 are only two out of *many* cpu architectures. N64 was MIPS, after all. And the first desktop 64-bit CPU was Sun's UltraSparc, way back when.

Im sick of you're attitude. Go hide in your cave, troll...
Any besides, I could read somthing way more than you and still not get anything out of it. Saying "I read this so Im a genass" means nothing...

xxxeagle · Post by **xxxeagle** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:50 pm

Fabre wrote:
sam wrote:Sidenote: Anyone have info on xbox2 ?
It will have a multicore PowerPC chip (so there is still a possibility of it being a Cell), and an ATi graphics coprocessor with not just TV out, but also VGA out. It will be called Xbox 360, and come in three different packages - one would be a normal gaming system, the second would be the same except with a HDD, and the third would be a full gaming PC.

This new xbox sounds cool. How much of a price do you think the full gaming pc will cost ($700 maybe). Also Will the full gaming pc be able to run windows?

Xtl writes When will people actually understand that Xbox Next is just a smaller version of the current xbox... Now it seems that the xbox 2 will be called xbox 360 which is highly doubted in my opinion. Microsoft I dont think would change the whole name of the console just add something on for example the Super Netendo or the Netendo Gamecube they all keep the console name. Below is a article on the xbox 360.

Is this true? I dont think so.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:20 pm

i doubt it, i'ts too late in this gen to do something like that and too early to start remaking consoles when microsoft is in the midst of a technological race with Sony.

xxxeagle · Post by **xxxeagle** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:37 pm

yeah didnt believe it either. What do you think the full gaming PC price will be.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:59 pm

I'm pretty sure its aroun 6 to 7 hundred. Good guess xxxeagle!

xxxeagle · Post by **xxxeagle** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:01 pm

thanks thats expensive but hopefully it will be able to run an os(prefferably windows or linux) if it can i will try to get it.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:32 pm

xxxeagle wrote:thanks thats expensive but hopefully it will be able to run an os(prefferably windows or linux) if it can i will try to get it.

$600-700 isnt that expensive for a gaming PC (especially compared to Alienware). I'd also expect it to run a stripped down version of Windows 2000 (if not that Longhorn). As for linux, chances are that the group that make the Xbox linux project will make linux run on the next Xbox.

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:35 am

Sadly, I have to side with Guest :/ (Though I will say his attitude has much to be desired... how the heck does someone know how much the other person reads?) The N64's main CPU isn't 64-bit. The graphics processor has a 64-bit bus. And some graphics processors today are 256-bit by the same logic.
I think the guy on LEM is mistaken somehow on the definition of a 64-bit CPU. 64-bit CPU means operations are done with 64 bits used as the typical size, and has nothing to do with the bus width. It's unfortunate that the bus width of that Mac was crippled. Apple has been known to make mistakes.
And again, the main CPU of the PS2 is only 32-bit.
Against Guest, the Sun UltraSPARC sucks big time. Overpriced hunk of crap. I have no idea why systems like Sun's exist. It seems to me that for like $10000 you could buy 20 $500 computers and get WAY more done.
Anyway, I think everyone's getting too crazy about all of this. You all need to chill

Be excellent to each other. Being mistaken about something isn't the end of the world. And I think this also introduces a good point- don't believe everything on the internet!

Post by **Sparkfist** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:04 am

PS2 is a 128bit CPU computer, even howstuffworks agrees.

They say the N64 is a 64bit CPU, not the graphics engine.

As for the mac deal, I'll admitte I cant find anyother sites. Then again Google combine with my inablity to search productively make it really hard.

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:48 pm

You know what? I'm wrong. My apologies. Apparently those two processors are indeed 64-bit and 128-bit respectively. Though I think the reasoning behind them are fairly shady. For example, it looks like the Emotion Engine can only do 64-bit ADD operations and 128-bit SIMD (which is probably 4x32) so it's not any more 64-bit or 128-bit than a Pentium-3 except for the 64-bit ADD operation being there. The M4300i (N64) does sound like it is purely 64-bit though.
I'm not too sure I 100% agree with the labeling, but it does seem somewhat reasonable. I honestly think it's all a matter evil marketing. The good news is, with 64-bit enabled desktop processors, we may finally be able to get PS2 emulation on the PC at reasonable speeds, since the 64-bit ADDs and stuff don't need to be dumbed down to 32 bits and then fiddled with.
I still think that PPC being 64-bit is wrong though

MM007 · Post by **MM007** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:15 pm

Taking the bit values with scrutiny is STILL a good habit to be in, especially since the TurboGraphX-16 and the Atari Jaguar. If you really believed the 64-bit status of the Atari Jaguar, you would have to also consider the Sega Saturn 64-bit(dual 32-bit 28.8 MHz Hitachi processors). -_-...

Post by **Sparkfist** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:11 pm

MM007 wrote:Taking the bit values with scrutiny is STILL a good habit to be in, especially since the TurboGraphX-16 and the Atari Jaguar. If you really believed the 64-bit status of the Atari Jaguar, you would have to also consider the Sega Saturn 64-bit(dual 32-bit 28.8 MHz Hitachi processors). -_-...

Having two CPUs doesnt mean you have a computer that runs twice the bit rate, it means that the computer can run twice as many operations at once. Besides the Saturn didnt have a lot of games that made good use of the two CPUs are once, that only happend at the end of its life.

As for the TurboGraphX-16 and Atari Jaguar are just ways to get the name out there and make the consumer think its better. Most other companies dont do that.

Also to SgtBowHack, I dont believe the Sony PS2 CPU can be considered an 128bit if all it is are core processors are added together. That would make the Dreamcast be 384bit as it has 6 core processors running 64 bits a cycle.
Isnt it possible that we could have 64bit processors around and even more 128bit. After all just look at how fast development of CPUs has increased over the years.

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:31 am

The Dreamcast may have multiple processors but there is a main one. Most of the time the CPU's "bit" rating is only referring to the main CPU (unless you're shady like NEC, SNK or Atari). Anyway, I'd say that the PS2 shouldn't be called 128-bit because it cannot do ALL of its operations in 128-bit it looks like. So I'd say it's 64-bit just like most of the others, with some 128-bit acceleration.
I'm kind of amazed that the N64 could be so well emulated on desktop PCs if it is a true 64-bit processor. I admit that I didn't really look into it, but I thought it was 32-bit because of the mad speed they were getting on the emus. I bet if they go back and make a 64-bit version of the emulators they'd really kick some bootay.
Anyway, you can make a 1024-bit processor if you wanted, but there's really little need and it'd just take up a ton of silicon. That's really what drives processor development. Cost effectiveness.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:33 am

Well the CPU the N64 used is RISC type, and for the most part pentuims are a hybrid of CISC and RISC so I'd say that helps, also the clock speed of the N64 was only ~93mH to run a good emulator you need like 500mH.