2006 PC hardware vs. XBOX Next...

bonkrowave said:
Seconded.(except graphic part)

Everyone calls me a console fan boy .... yet they fail to realize they are PC fan boy.

I dont have a problem with either system ... as I will own both. But to argue the XBOX 2 is goign to be crap, most likely out of fear of a console pulling a head (only for a bit), when specs show otherwise .... well .... its not that bright.

And besides with the new XNA tools developed by microsoft ... we will most likely see the majoirty of games for XBOX 2 be available for PC.
I would imagine MS will keep many specific to the Xbox 2 anyways so as to monopolize.
 
bonkrowave said:
Seconded.(except graphic part)

Everyone calls me a console fan boy .... yet they fail to realize they are PC fan boy.

I dont have a problem with either system ... as I will own both. But to argue the XBOX 2 is goign to be crap, most likely out of fear of a console pulling a head (only for a bit), when specs show otherwise .... well .... its not that bright.

And besides with the new XNA tools developed by microsoft ... we will most likely see the majoirty of games for XBOX 2 be available for PC.
i really wish this thread would just be locked. I'm sick of seeing it on my screen.

Bonkrowave you have been constantly asked to take your complaining to PMs, please do so. I have already PMed you once.

As a side note noone said Xbox 2 was going to be crap. It will be an excellent system, with excellent games. Just as the PS3 will be. Just like PC's are. Personally i will be buying a PS3 or Xbox 2, i do believe they will have very nice hardware. But until someone figures out a way to hook one up to a monitor running at 1600x1200 resolution FSAA and compares the results to what a PC would run at, your claims are rediculous. Yes we all know that Xbox 2 will have nice hardware. I even heard that the PS3 is able to run at 4ghz+ on its cell processor, which i have to say is impressive. It is. What does that mean? absolutely nothing. take a 2.6c pentium 4 against a 2.4 Athlon 64..... who is going to win? You are running off " I HEAR THE XBOX WILL BE L33T!!!!" but have we seen any kind of benchmarks? no. Hell we dont even have a way of benchmarks. One because everything is theory since the Xbox 2 isn't even out. And two because you have to find a way to make the Xbox 2 run in the same settings as a PC.

Yes, we know that the ATI R5xx will be in it. Really who cares. I mean really. That means nothing. Bonk, which is faster, now this is going to stump you so please be careful. Nvidia's 4600 ti or Nvidias 6200. You know the answer. There is no need to answer. My point is just because the R5xx is in it does not mean that it will be the high end model. Actually i know it will not be the high end model. I'm sure the high end model of the R5xx will cost double what the Xbox debuts at. We know that they do not make money off the console, but they surely don't want to lose such a large amount of money like that for some gaming system. I am sure at max the R5xx in the Xbox 2 will be the low end model, if you are lucky maybe even the mid range. The R5xx does NOT need to be that powerful. I am willing to bet a ti 4600 could blow whatever R5xx has out of the water, horsepower wise. Why not have a ti 4600 in the Xbox then? Because the R5xx will have something of use better than just pushing frames. It will be just strong enough to push the frames they need on a low resolution, not only that but it will have a LOAD of new features more than some outdated geforce card. Why put the strongest card ATI has in a gamebox made used by a large portion of kids/teens? That is incredibly stupid. ATI is supplying a card just strong enough to meet the needs. They need a target set of FPS and a certain amount of features and thats it. Xbox 2 gamers don't fight like we do. MY XBOX2 IS FASTER THAN YOURS!!!! They don't neeed 100+ 200+ 300+ frames per second to get some stupid benchmark done like we do. The Xbox 2 is just as powerful as it needs to be.

In closing, yes everything i said was in fact a "guess", just as you made. But really which is more logical? Lets be serious. The Xbox 2 is not going to be made to "beat" PC's , it is meant to deliver an amazing gaming experience. I am sure we will not be disappointed.

If you want to comment on what i said fine. But if you want to "argue" with me about a system thats not even out, keep it to yourself. If you desperately need to say something because i offended you and your "Xbox !!!!!!'s" , my PMs are open.
 
Tygerwoody, you are not an OP, and no one is forcing you to read this thread. If it causes you so much grief, perhaps you should unsubscribe from it.

I am not complaining I was reinforcing the post above me. Just because I have a different opinion does not make my posts any less meaningful then yours. This is a public form ... not an "everyone think the same way" forum.

So stop trying to threaten my opinion away.

You are speculating just as much as, apparently, I am, with your last post. If you dont like my opinion maybe you should find the nazi boards where everyone is forced to have the same opinion.

My opinion is that the XBOX 2 will infact trump PC graphics for a time, much the same the XBOX 1 did.

The title of this thread is 2006 PC hardware vs XBOX .... not current technology ... that is why there is so much speculating going on, stop trying to hijack the thread.

Honestly what do you people want ? Do you want to hear that there is no way the XBOX will trump PC hardware when it first comes out ? .... because it sure seams that way.
 
*sigh* Ok, I'll try to add a new point of view and try to play devils advocate.

It has been said that $300 Xbox is a good investment rather than buy a pc for the quality. With that said I believe for those of us who already have a pc (everyone here) the $400-$500 speculated for the Xbox 2 could very likely be dumped into next gen updrades to surpas that of the Xbox 2. Obviously for many people it will cost much more, but for many as well purchasing an Xbox 2 isn't a much of a cash deal as it would seem. If I was still a child, I'd certainly be asking Santa for an Xbox 2. But now that I have bills to pay, I'll go where I can get the most for my money.
 
redhalo said:
*sigh* Ok, I'll try to add a new point of view and try to play devils advocate.

It has been said that $300 Xbox is a good investment rather than buy a pc for the quality. With that said I believe for those of us who already have a pc (everyone here) the $400-$500 speculated for the Xbox 2 could very likely be dumped into next gen updrades to surpas that of the Xbox 2. Obviously for many people it will cost much more, but for many as well purchasing an Xbox 2 isn't a much of a cash deal as it would seem. If I was still a child, I'd certainly be asking Santa for an Xbox 2. But now that I have bills to pay, I'll go where I can get the most for my money.

I agree with you on this. It would make sence to dump your money into a computer upgrade rather than an XBOX2. Certainly each has its advantages, as we have alrady discussed.

The XBOX will never be a substitute for a computer. With the new XNA tools, IE high level shader language and other tools, that will be compatibile with both the next generation XBOX, and windows, it is very likely the same games will be available for PC and XBOX, as ports will be made much easier.

.... well lets hope easier and better then ..... the Halo port :eek:
 
bonkrowave said:
With the new XNA tools, IE high level shader language and other tools, that will be compatibile with both the next generation XBOX, and windows, it is very likely the same games will be available for PC and XBOX, as ports will be made much easier.

If I was Microsoft, I wouldn't port any game so people would have to buy the Xbox II.
 
Xrave said:
If I was Microsoft, I wouldn't port any game so people would have to buy the Xbox II.

Ya that makes sence. Although I guess you could always wait till a game stopped selling well, then port it over.
 
WickedAngel said:
Any generalizations that were made against PC fans have been proven thoroughly by their own posts.

Most of you (Generalization Alert!!!!!) are too stubborn to admit that you can have an excellent gaming experience on a system that launches at 1/10 of what you paid for your gaming beast.

Will it look as good? Nope. Are graphics the end-all factor in whether a game is good or not? Nope.

not just graphics, but framerate, though, is a big factor. when you have a console like the xbox, and if you are getting crappy frames, you can't decide to spend more $ for more performance. i was watching a friend play ghost recon 2. it looked cool , but the framerate was really bad, but it didn't bother him, he didn't play PC games though, so he probably doesn't know how good 80fps feels, like most console gamers that have never played PC games.
 
doh-nut said:
not just graphics, but framerate, though, is a big factor. when you have a console like the xbox, and if you are getting crappy frames, you can't decide to spend more $ for more performance. i was watching a friend play ghost recon 2. it looked cool , but the framerate was really bad, but it didn't bother him, he didn't play PC games though, so he probably doesn't know how good 80fps feels, like most console gamers that have never played PC games.

I prefer to play games at a stable 30fps over a system that fluctuates ~20fps depending on whether or not there is action. Perhaps that's just me.
 
bonkrowave said:
I agree with you on this. It would make sence to dump your money into a computer upgrade rather than an XBOX2. Certainly each has its advantages, as we have alrady discussed.

The XBOX will never be a substitute for a computer. With the new XNA tools, IE high level shader language and other tools, that will be compatibile with both the next generation XBOX, and windows, it is very likely the same games will be available for PC and XBOX, as ports will be made much easier.

.... well lets hope easier and better then ..... the Halo port :eek:
Ok, inform me cause I'm really out of the know on this one. I thought that Halo on the PC was shite, but mostly cause there are much better FPS on PC in almost all respects...I felt that it was more feature rich and graphically better than the Xbox version though, but since I don't play either regularly I'm not up on what made it a bad port. Someone teach me.

As for this XNA, I'm not really informed on this one either, could it be used more so to make PC games easier to port to Xbox2 rather than the other way around? That sounds like a better solution for MS.
 
IMO PC's are on par graphics wise with what the Xbox2/PS3 will be once release. I just don't see any games on Xbox2/PS2 looking any better than Doom III,Far Cry and Half life 2 does on a mid to high end PC with the graphics cranked up. Even then you would have to have them hooked to a HDTV to get the same quality results.

So IMO newer gen consoles have catching up to do with the PC graphics wise. I think this time around consoles will be on par with PC's graphics wise. Then in about 2-3 years we from now we will start seeing new engines coming out for PC that will pass the consoles up a bit. I'd say Xbox2/PS2 ain't do till late 2006? This years E3 should show some good stuff about each new system.

Just what I think
 
SniperXx said:
IMO PC's are on par graphics wise with what the Xbox2/PS3 will be once release. I just don't see any games on Xbox2/PS2 looking any better than Doom III,Far Cry and Half life 2 does on a mid to high end PC with the graphics cranked up. Even then you would have to have them hooked to a HDTV to get the same quality results.

So IMO newer gen consoles have catching up to do with the PC graphics wise. I think this time around consoles will be on par with PC's graphics wise. Then in about 2-3 years we from now we will start seeing new engines coming out for PC that will pass the consoles up a bit. I'd say Xbox2/PS2 ain't do till late 2006? This years E3 should show some good stuff about each new system.

Just what I think
You bring up an intersting point now that I think about it...Consoles arn't going to put in the same amount of time to devlope a new graphics engine for they're first release games. They simply havn't had long enough with the known hardware to write for it. So a more plausable route would be to purchase a pre made engine now...like they did with the CoD series. So even if the hardware was lightyears ahead all the games would look the same as present day PC games. Just speculating. MS isn't going to wait the 5+ years that Valve and ID did to push the graphics level, they'll probably just be aiming to beat out the other consoles. This is all for release games...I'm sure better stuff will be put out with time to maximize what the XBOX 2 might be able to do.
 
Epic has UE3 running smoothly on XBox2 hardware, yet can't get it running above 30 fps on PC platforms with anything less than SLI.
 
Sizer said:
Epic has UE3 running smoothly on XBox2 hardware, yet can't get it running above 30 fps on PC platforms with anything less than SLI.


Then you have to consider if it was a bad port.
Then remember that the Xbox2 is at least 6 months away, at least. Meaning that both ATI and Nvidia are going to have new cards out. Then by the time the Xbox2 becomes widely available they will have another set of cards not.
Not mention dualcore from intel due in a month, and then from AMD soon after.
 
You know what, I was at IGN.com looking at Actual Xbox screenshots of Splinter Cell 3, and from what I've seen there, the Xbox 1 is capable of what I've seenfor the PC. They totally re-did the graphics engine for the third installment of Splinter Cell to squeeze out more from the Xbox, and it looks AMAZING. And they're actual shots of the editors at IGN playing the game, so it's not all FMV rendering or anything....what the Xbox 2 will be capable of is amazing.
 
Tygerwoody said:
i
My point is just because the R5xx is in it does not mean that it will be the high end model. Actually i know it will not be the high end model. I'm sure the high end model of the R5xx will cost double what the Xbox debuts at. .

At the first of your thread, you go on and on about how people don't know how fast the xbox will be because there are no benchmarks.. its not out.. ect ect. Then you say that you KNOW that it won't be the high end model of the R5xx? And before the xbox came out , did you KNOW that the NV2A was'nt going to be as fast as the brand spankin new GF3 TI500 that cost more than the xbox itself? Cause if you did, you knew wrong.
 
diehard said:
At the first of your thread, you go on and on about how people don't know how fast the xbox will be because there are no benchmarks.. its not out.. ect ect. Then you say that you KNOW that it won't be the high end model of the R5xx? And before the xbox came out , did you KNOW that the NV2A was'nt going to be as fast as the brand spankin new GF3 TI500 that cost more than the xbox itself? Cause if you did, you knew wrong.
1. the GF3 TI500 was faster

2. I stated it seemed more LOGICAL that they wouldnt put a high end card in the Xbox 2, when it isnt even needed.
Xbox 2 = around 300 bucks at debut
New high end R5xx = 600+ buck at debut

thats what i mean by logic. Why stick a 600 dollar card inside a box you will sell for half. And on top of that still have more of the price to actually make the system. Now what makes more sense.
 
WickedAngel said:
I prefer to play games at a stable 30fps over a system that fluctuates ~20fps depending on whether or not there is action. Perhaps that's just me.

yes, me too, but framerate flucuation down to ~20fps isn't PC exclusive. though if it does happen on the PC, it can usually be remedied after tweaking a graphic setting.
 
Tygerwoody said:
1. the GF3 TI500 was faster

2. I stated it seemed more LOGICAL that they wouldnt put a high end card in the Xbox 2, when it isnt even needed.
Xbox 2 = around 300 bucks at debut
New high end R5xx = 600+ buck at debut

thats what i mean by logic. Why stick a 600 dollar card inside a box you will sell for half. And on top of that still have more of the price to actually make the system. Now what makes more sense.

The TI500 had a higher fill rate, but the NV2A has an extra pixel shader, and judging by how many shaders are used in halo 2, N2VA was better off.

Im NOT saying that the xbox 2 will have a faster GPU that what is available when it comes out, just that it will probably be an amazing value, and be at least as fast as a comparable video card of equal price of the entire xbox 2 system.
 
Doesn't the NV2A in the XBox run at 250Mhz? Or was it knocked down to 233?
Either way, the GF3 ti500 is 240Mhz. So it is either a slightly slower, or very slightly faster chip. If its the latter, I wouldnt really say it has a higher fillrate...cause the difference is negligible.
The NV2A is still a superior GPU to the GF3 no matter how you slice and dice it.
 
Tygerwoody said:
1. the GF3 TI500 was faster

2. I stated it seemed more LOGICAL that they wouldnt put a high end card in the Xbox 2, when it isnt even needed.
Xbox 2 = around 300 bucks at debut
New high end R5xx = 600+ buck at debut

thats what i mean by logic. Why stick a 600 dollar card inside a box you will sell for half. And on top of that still have more of the price to actually make the system. Now what makes more sense.

1. TI500 wasnt faster. The chip may have been a few Mhz faster (less than 5), but the NV2A was a superior design.

2. It is not logical to compare the price of a retail card to the price of what would be in a console. When you buy a top of the line video card, like the R5xx you mention, you are paying for the GPU, the 256MB or more of dedicated high speed memory, the construction of the card, the name, the R&D since the card will only be hot for 6 months to a year, tops, and the premium they add to it because they know people will pay to have the best.

XBox has a shared memory interface, XBox2 probably does as well. I havent seen the specs of it, but it probably doesn't have more than 256MB total memory.
It's integrated so there is no card to build. It's going to be produced in the millions. There will be no refresh or replacement in 6 months or a year, and it will have strong sales for at least the next 5-6 years, so even if they sell it at very slim profits at first, it will be made up later. No added premium since nobody cares what video card is in the thing, as long as games are cool. Those all factor in to MUCH lower costs than your regular retail boards.
 
redhalo said:
As for this XNA, I'm not really informed on this one either, could it be used more so to make PC games easier to port to Xbox2 rather than the other way around? That sounds like a better solution for MS.


Ya XNA is a two way street. It just allows for the same tools to be used to create XBOX 2 games and games based on the upcomming new version of windows. It just really makes it that much easier to program for the two sides, so it should allow for more time spent on things like plot and actuall gameplay.

Also XBOX will not be partnering again with Nvidia, which is why the XBOX 2 is going to use a ATI Graphic processor. It all comes down to the problems MS had with the Nvidia solution for XBOX1. Apparently Microsoft was in a rush to sign a deal with Nvidia to hit the release date for the XBOX and were screwed in the fine print. It was reported that Nvidia drafted up a contract that made the price of the GPU chip constant. Microsoft got screwed on this however because even when the cost to make the chip decreased they still had to pay top dollar.

I wonder how Microsoft felt when the shoe was on the other foot. :p
 
i seriously do wonder if they will allow some kind of backwards capability from Xbox2 to PC and visa versa, even if it is only a selection of games. If that was to be true, then it would also mean that Xbox2 can play online with the PC gamers. (which is good and bad) :cool:
 
Tygerwoody said:
i seriously do wonder if they will allow some kind of backwards capability from Xbox2 to PC and visa versa, even if it is only a selection of games. If that was to be true, then it would also mean that Xbox2 can play online with the PC gamers. (which is good and bad) :cool:

The thing that worries me is backwards compatibility with XBOX 1. There are conflicting reports that the XBOX 2 may not be backwards compatible. If this is true I think it is a bad mistake on Microsofts part.

And if it ends up being true .... I have only one word BOO-urns.
 
bonkrowave said:
The thing that worries me is backwards compatibility with XBOX 1. There are conflicting reports that the XBOX 2 may not be backwards compatible. If this is true I think it is a bad mistake on Microsofts part.

And if it ends up being true .... I have only one word BOO-urns.
Yup...it may not be back-campat because 1.)It has 3 64-bit processors designed by IBM and Xbox 1 games were designed to run on 32-bit processors and 2.)if xbox 1 games are to be compatible, Microsoft will have to pay royalties to intel (due to their architechtural origin on Xbox 1-designed to be played using the intel processor). But I really hope they figure something out! And I really don't think any Xbox 2 games will be compatible with the PC-that would defeat the purpose of them even releasing the Xbox 2 itself-and youd have to have a PC with 3 64-bit processors! That would tear an arm and a leg off of anyone whos not fairly rich! Although I do wonder how they get those CPU's in there like that without having the system cost 1000 bucks...but that's the magic of consoles-so many are sold, the price is more than made up for later!
 
bonkrowave said:
The thing that worries me is backwards compatibility with XBOX 1. There are conflicting reports that the XBOX 2 may not be backwards compatible. If this is true I think it is a bad mistake on Microsofts part.

And if it ends up being true .... I have only one word BOO-urns.

I dont think it will a massive issue to be honest. Who plays old games on a new platform much anyways?
 
Syphon Filter said:
I dont think it will a massive issue to be honest. Who plays old games on a new platform much anyways?
exactly... I had a PS2 the day it came out.... Only time i EVER played a PS1 game was Metal Gear Solid(which is the most revolutionary game of all time IMO).... I could care less if i can play old Xbox games
 
Tygerwoody said:
exactly... I had a PS2 the day it came out.... Only time i EVER played a PS1 game was Metal Gear Solid(which is the most revolutionary game of all time IMO).... I could care less if i can play old Xbox games

Quite. And its not like you have to get rid of your current hardware just because you buy a new one
 
lesman said:
Yup...it may not be back-campat because 1.)It has 3 64-bit processors designed by IBM and Xbox 1 games were designed to run on 32-bit processors and 2.)if xbox 1 games are to be compatible, Microsoft will have to pay royalties to intel (due to their architechtural origin on Xbox 1-designed to be played using the intel processor). But I really hope they figure something out! And I really don't think any Xbox 2 games will be compatible with the PC-that would defeat the purpose of them even releasing the Xbox 2 itself-and youd have to have a PC with 3 64-bit processors! That would tear an arm and a leg off of anyone whos not fairly rich! Although I do wonder how they get those CPU's in there like that without having the system cost 1000 bucks...but that's the magic of consoles-so many are sold, the price is more than made up for later!

1) Emulation. Might make things a bit slower but in the end those games would still run smoothly I'm sure.

2) Very good point. This is the single reason that I would see the Xbox2 NOT being backward compatible with Xbox1 games.

3) Well sort of point 3...you missed noting it. Anyway, No...having 3 64bit CPUs would NOT make anything that expensive. It all depends on the nature of the CPUs in question. My guess is that just ONE of these is a multi-purpose (hence "expensive) CPU and the other two are some kind of DSP or dedicated ASIC of some kind to handle very few functions but handle them extremely fast.

Anyone have a reliable list of Xbox2 specs?
 
Wolf-R1 said:
1) Emulation. Might make things a bit slower but in the end those games would still run smoothly I'm sure.

2) Very good point. This is the single reason that I would see the Xbox2 NOT being backward compatible with Xbox1 games.

3) Well sort of point 3...you missed noting it. Anyway, No...having 3 64bit CPUs would NOT make anything that expensive. It all depends on the nature of the CPUs in question. My guess is that just ONE of these is a multi-purpose (hence "expensive) CPU and the other two are some kind of DSP or dedicated ASIC of some kind to handle very few functions but handle them extremely fast.

Anyone have a reliable list of Xbox2 specs?
Hmm...interesting point 3 there, didn't think about that one...good point!
 
lesman said:
Hmm...interesting point 3 there, didn't think about that one...good point!

Every now and again I have a brain fart and come up with something good. :p

Here's what I got thus far...not from a very reliable source and it's still just heresay:

"...three IBM PPC CPUs, each capable of running two threads, for a total of six threads running at the same time. These cores, reportedly based on the PowerPC 976, the first dual core 65nm PPC core. What is more up in the air is whether each core is SMT capable, or there are true dual cores on each die. Either way, it potentially packs a huge processing punch."

Now I'm inclined to go with your comment, lesman...this would be expensive for any of us to put together on our own. However, if you recall anything about the original Xbox it was supposed to be this killer rig then was finally released with "older" components for the time and everyone was disappointed.

"The next item on the list is the GPU, this time built by ATI rather than NVidia. It is said to be based on the R500 core, and should be at least PS and VS 3.0 compatible, and DX10 is said to be in the cards. Once again, it packs a punch."

Once again heresay but it would be a serious boon to have this kind of power on the graphics side of things.

"The more troubling bits come in talk about cost savings. The HD is reportedly on the chopping block for cost reasons, and in a reactionary move, MS is basing the memory on what Sony puts in the PS3. Right now, there is 256MB in the blueprints, but 512MB is a distinct possibility if Sony pushes the specs. Being reactionary is not a good thing, look at Windows, but doing so in hardware is near suicidal. Lead times, and the fact that developers need targets to write to all conspire against changing console specs in the slightest way. This could cause pain for many on the software side."

Yeah...that could be a serious disappointment to console fans. Especially of the Xbox variety. Hasn't that been one of the better points of the Xbox?

These excerpts are taken from here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13928

There is also mention of backward compatibility and IBM being in bed with nearly all console manufacturers at this point. Very interesting times for you console people!
 
Interesting indeed, and I just can't wait to see what the end-product of all this mass confusion will be like! Great info you got there, man, nice source(s) and nice quoting done there! This definitely will be the biggest console war of any generation, IMO....and a confusing one! All this talk of RAM and cores with 2 threads and whatnot will have the typical console gamer like "?????" Ha ha...gonna be weird.

EDIT: Man, I read through the article you linked, and the links through that, and it seems that Microsoft is being bitchy about stuff. I'm worried about all this...
 
I wouldn't worry too much. Whatever M$ decides to do they will most likely do it well. I mean...look at what they've been able to do with a meager 'Celeron 733 and GF3/4 combination. As I've mentioned before I don't have any consoles and probably never will have another one again but it still boggles the mind what developers can do when they really put their minds to it. :eek:
 
From the Inq article linked above:
"...and in a reactionary move, MS is basing the memory on what Sony puts in the PS3. Right now, there is 256MB in the blueprints, but 512MB is a distinct possibility if Sony pushes the specs."

According to thise article Sony is going with 512MB of XDR DRAM:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/02/09/news_6118242.html

I thought Rambus RAM was supposed to be very expensive??
 
MH Knights said:
From the Inq article linked above:
"...and in a reactionary move, MS is basing the memory on what Sony puts in the PS3. Right now, there is 256MB in the blueprints, but 512MB is a distinct possibility if Sony pushes the specs."

According to thise article Sony is going with 512MB of XDR DRAM:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/02/09/news_6118242.html

I thought Rambus RAM was supposed to be very expensive??
Pretty cool, sounds interesting. I'm glad that Sony decided to use 512mb rather than 256mb because, you know, it's just not that much and if anything, developers would want extra, than not enough. More RAM=more level to mess around in/less seams.q
 
lesman said:
Pretty cool, sounds interesting. I'm glad that Sony decided to use 512mb rather than 256mb because, you know, it's just not that much and if anything, developers would want extra, than not enough. More RAM=more level to mess around in/less seams.q

Smaller load times, something that has always haunted consoles.
 
Well I thought I had some good credable information regarding the XBOX 2 when I read this story ...

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=114982

But then I saw the guy quoted, Steve Ballmer, do this:
http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

And I couldn't stop laughing.
 
I didn't laugh...I simply couldn't pick my jaw up off the floor...I'm still in shock....my hands are shaking....I'm scared...
 
Back
Top