Playstation3 to be delayed?

alvino said:
It's a symmetrical tri-core processor. Each core is a IBM PowerPC running at 3.2ghz each and each core has SMT enabled (something like Intel's HyperThreading Technology), meaning each core has two threads. Basically it's a tri-core processor with three additional logical processors. Powerful stuff...:D
SMT is Simultaneous multiple transport (i am pretty sure that is what it means) but it is not like hyper threading... on an ordinary system, the processor can only do 1 thing at a time, but it does them in so few millaseconds that the human thinks it is doing multiple things at once...with SMT, the processor also creates a virtual processor(for a grand total of 6 processors) so that in reality one of the 3 processors can be doing 2 things at once... so with the six processors, microsoft has assigned dedicated duties to each, one of them runs AI, the other, the graphics, another, media. The article i read in OXM said that there were still 3 processors left, so that they could expand. heck you think the graphics look good on the xbox 360 now, wait about 2-3 more years! they are going to blow the doors off of you! I personally can't wait untill they do perfect human renders!


sorry about the double post but i kinda figured that it was a different subject...
 
Ok guys. Here's what's going on with the PS3's. I just saw the morning news and they had a report on the PS3 development. It's from the ABC 7 Eyewitness News:

The PS3 will be delayed for US release until November of this year. The reason: well, @ $900 + cost, who want to buy it? No one. Financing it is the main reason of the delay. No word on what strategy Sony will do just yet.
 
Yeah but if thats the production costs, they'll sell it for cheaper.

Xbox 360's cost more than they sell for as well.
 
If they sell if for cheaper than production cost, hopefully the millions of sales will add up to generate enough profit for Sony. The actual PS3 is ready to go. They even had a prelaunch show displaying the system. I think they're waiting until November so the prices will come down.
 
Yeah, I dont think Sony can afford unlike Microsoft to lose as much as they'd have to to sell in this system. For example, they'd at least have to drop it to $500 from the 900 its specced at. Thats $400 lost a system.
 
Sony and Microsoft sold their xbox and ps2 for a loss too, but their profits came from game sales (well, that was microsoft's plan. How much did they lose again?)

Nintendo is the only company that sells their consoles at a profit. 'Cos they're smart.
 
Yeah but Nintedo also don't make as powerful and up to date machines, so the prices of their hardware needed has dropped.

As for Microsoft, I think it was about $300 a system...I may be wrong.
 
Kage said:
Yeah but Nintedo also don't make as powerful and up to date machines, so the prices of their hardware needed has dropped.

As for Microsoft, I think it was about $300 a system...I may be wrong.

That isn't true. The N64 was more powerful than the Playstation, sure on paper the gamecube was less powerful than the ps2 and xbox, but it could create graphics better than the ps2 and the xbox barely beat it. Powerful hardware is one thing, making that hardware efficient is another, something Sony and Microsoft still have to learn, for them it's all numbers on paper. Do you think the 360 and ps3 are ever going to churn out the numbers they are giving us? They did it with the xbox and ps2, they never got close to doing what they said they would do. Nintendo gave us realistic figures and everybody instantly said 'wow, that's weak'.

Up to date? The gamecube had the most efficient RAM at the time, developed by Nintendo themselves.

The Revolution is definitely going to have less powerful hardware than the 360 and ps3, but there are patents flying all over the place stating Nintendo is using new technology able to produce displacement mapping than doesn't require a powerful CPU. If this is implemented into the Rev it might be able to stand up to, or even surpass the competition with much less powerful hardware.
 
Well yes, I wasnt saying they never did. I'm afraid to say though that the gameucube (I have one) and the Xbox beat it by quite a bit...

But I wasnt saying they were rubbish. I'm just saying they don't care much as much on hardware, and thats true. Alot of people still regard that as a bad decision since on the latest development of consoles, it seems to be power against power.
 
Back
Top Bottom