PS3 specs revealed

Post by **benheck** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:44 am

It's quite possible the PS3 will be marketed as a "digital hub" of your digital home entertainment system. (I think I heard this a few years back)

I mean, it's gonna play Blue-Ray discs, have broadband and even a hard drive, correct?

By really pushing the system as more than just a "game" they'll have an excuse to also push the price up. Granted, the $300 entry cost average has been around for 10 years now but keep in mind electronics are kind of "reverse inflation" in price. That, and game manufacturers WILL sell at a loss.

I'm sure it won't be like the 3D0 initial price ($600 wasn't it) but $400 wouldn't suprise me... $500 would though.

I think the BIG question is if the Xbox 2/Gamecube 2 REALLY DO come out this year will people buy them or wait for the PS3? It's funny because the 2 newer systems are the first to replace themselves while the PS2 is aging fast... I still think the Xbox should wait since they're finally coming into their own (number #2 selling game of the year (Halo 2) on a system outnumbered by the PS2 by 5 to 1? that's impressive)

Although the XBox 2 could launch with a killer app... a game 5 years in the making.... PERFECT DARK ZERO! Heck, I'd buy one! (As long as the Superdragon is still in it) It's rumored to be "awesome" And those Bond boys can put Bungie to SHAME!

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:31 pm

Sparkfist wrote:Well they never mentioned these things were going into home PCs. .... They had AIX now linux, why the hell would they use windows.

I'm not saying it will. I'm saying IF it reaches home users, it should be able to run Windows. IBM can use good old OS/2 for all I care. What matters is not what IBM uses the chip for, but what its clients use the chip for.

I didnt read anything talking about the core being based on the PowerPC architechure. Considering IBM is involved I wouldnt say its impossible. And the thing about running window on the same maching as a mac, I recently heard about things call pentium cards. Full fleged P1 on a PCI, I aware that it will only support 98 at best, too bad they died out.

Yeah, those cards were pretty awesome. I was mainly thinking that those cards take up space and cost a lot where this could be a really teeny solution that can do them

For, say... portables! As for my comment about PowerPC...

The article wrote:A core based on IBM's Power architecture controls eight "synergistic" processing centres.

Not entirely sure this will mean that PowerPC opcodes will work with it or what, but it is possible...

Sparkfist wrote:...Asking if it will work with windows to me is a load of bull. I cant see why as these are not going into areas that Microsoft has domancance.[/rant]

I'm not saying Windows is good use of the Cell! I agree that Windows is probably not the best platform out there as far as performance, etc. is concerned. But should Cell make it into the home market somehow, I would say that Windows would be a big selling point for a lot of people.

MM007 wrote:I think that 10% non Windows is a conservative estimate BTW. 10% in the US alone, maybe. My networking teacher told us that Brazil's companies and government went fully Linux, along with 2/3rd of the companies in Europe.

Since when did Brazil's companies and government get counted as home users? Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Brazil's home users used Linux too just because it's cheaper. Same with those machines cropping up in India.
My apologies for the long rebuttal

I didn't mean to incite riots with my first post, but I think what I said was misunderstood... So, to summarize (and make clearer)
- Windows would be a selling point IF the Cell makes it to the home PC market, especially in the USA.
- It's small and mad powerful, which probably also makes it mad hot (243 million transistors! That's double what Prescott uses!) But I have high hopes for it

- It'd be nice if it finally kills off the aging x86 architecture once and for all.

Post by **gannon** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:34 pm

SgtBowhack wrote:
Sparkfist wrote:Well they never mentioned these things were going into home PCs. .... They had AIX now linux, why the hell would they use windows.
I'm not saying it will. I'm saying IF it reaches home users, it should be able to run Windows. IBM can use good old OS/2 for all I care. What matters is not what IBM uses the chip for, but what its clients use the chip for.

Well, they did say that they were going to.

IBM has said it will sell a workstation with the chip starting later this year.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:23 pm

Brizil I'll have to say isnt a great example but one non the less. Many companies and forein countries are make the switch to linux as it usually has no fees for using the OS on multiple systems. Microsoft charges businesses fees every so often for using the OS.
If you look at the stitistics of Europe its I believe 30-45% linux. That includes home and business.
And as my teacher said (use windows NT/2000 as example) "It starts in the busines office, once people get used to the OS they will want to use it at home. Thats where Windws 2000 came from, NT users wanting a home version to use."

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:51 am

Yeah, I'm not saying Linux won't continue to grow, but if the Cell gets home before Linux does, we're gonna see Windows for Cell. Microsoft will do it because they want to keep Linux and other OSes away from it. That's how they work.

gannon wrote:Well, they did say that they were going to.

Not true. Workstations do not equal home systems. Xeons are used in workstations, but I'd imagine very few of us use Xeon processors in our home computers.
Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying by that sentence

Post by **gannon** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:53 am

I'm saying that they will be making PCs with them in it by the end of the year, and that one of the most common OSes (whether it be personal or business) in the US is Windows.

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:46 am

Oh. The tone of your post didn't seem to be agreeing with me, but I guess it was

OK. Well, in the end, I'm willing to wager that Windows will end up on this thing somehow. Whether Microsoft does it or someone else is the real question.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:27 am

Microsoft *has* to do it. Otherwise you get emulation, and that just doesnt cut it performance-wise. Windows is already sufficiently bloated and slow. Look at how badly XP runs on a (dual!) G5 in VirtualPC. Nobody's gonna buy a new architecture if Windows doesnt naturally run on it. This is why the x86 architecture has stayed around so long past its useful life.

G-force · Post by **G-force** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:50 pm

I dunno...that dosn't really make sense

Microsoft might make Windows for Xbox 2, but not the competition! Why would they do that?

Post by **Sparkfist** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:46 pm

G-force wrote:I dunno...that dosn't really make sense Microsoft might make Windows for Xbox 2, but not the competition! Why would they do that?

Microsoft will produce software for any area they can make either a good market share in, dominate or just say they will to screw over the companies making software in that area.
And the X86 has stayed alive so long to one main reason: Intel and Microsoft scratch each other's back. Every new OS of windows needs more Ram, more CPU speed and more space on the hard drive. Why Intel, Intel makes more faster processors and so both gain.

I guess AMD finally when ahead on their own, and made a 64bit CPU. Too bad the PowerPC CPU has been 64 sence about '97.

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:12 pm

G-Force: We're not talking about Windows for the PS3. We're talking about Cell workstations here. The Cell processor will be used in things other than Sony's next monstrosity

Sparkfist: Indeed. We wouldn't need processors half as fast if software was more optimized. But then the developers say "Eh, everyone has a 1GHz processor!" and don't bother optimizing for a wider market.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:04 am

G5 is the first 64-bit PPC, sorry. All previous ones were simply designed to allow the architecture to grow to that at a later point.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:02 am

Anonymous wrote:G5 is the first 64-bit PPC, sorry. All previous ones were simply designed to allow the architecture to grow to that at a later point.

Funny then really according to what your saying we havent developed 64bit procrssor until recently. Odd that Nintedo would blatenly lie about the speces for the N64 which say its 64bit processor, and odd that the Apple would make the PowerPC when the Motoral 68k were used in machines like the LC and operatied as 32bit machines.

Proof? http://www.lowendmac.com/roadapples/x200.shtml read the sentance under the thrid paraghrah just above the the list.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:00 am

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.

Post by **gannon** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:08 am

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.

Sorry, we don't believe guests if you want us to believe you, you must register.

Anyways, I think you've posted 18 times so far, and that's more than a bunch of registered users