ps3 video & specs

monty73741 · Post by **monty73741** » May 18th, 2005, 12:56 pm

http://e3.playstation.com/video/index.aspx

looks bad a--

93SOHC · Post by **93SOHC** » May 18th, 2005, 1:18 pm

ive been waiting for this damn thing for 2 years! Whens it coming out? I can't wait

monty73741 · Post by **monty73741** » May 18th, 2005, 2:29 pm

ps3 specs
E3 2005: PS3 Tech Specs
More numbers than you can shake a slide rule at.
by Tal Blevins
May 16, 2005 -

Product name: PlayStation 3

Logo: PLAYSTATION(R)3

CPU

Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
GPU
RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines
Sound
Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell- base processing)
Memory
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
System Bandwidth
Main RAM 25.6GB/s
VRAM 22.4GB/s
RSX 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB< 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)
System Floating Point Performance
2 TFLOPS
Storage
Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1
I/O
USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
Memory Stick standard/Duo, PRO x 1
SD standard/mini x 1
CompactFlash (Type I, II) x 1
Communication
Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2)
Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 b/g
Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
Controller
Bluetooth (up to 7)
USB 2.0 (wired)
Wi-Fi (PSP)
Network (over IP)

AV Output
Screen size: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
HDMI: HDMI out x 2
Analog: AV MULTI OUT x 1
Digital audio: DIGITAL OUT (OPTICAL) x 1
Disc Media
CD PlayStation CD-ROM, PlayStation 2 CD-ROM, CD-DA, CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW, SACD, SACD Hybrid (CD layer), SACD HD, DualDisc, DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side)
DVD: PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM, PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW
Blu-ray Disc: PlayStation 3 BD-ROM, BD-Video, BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE

Chronicle-Rod · Post by **Chronicle-Rod** » May 19th, 2005, 8:30 pm

It's too bad that none of the video they're showing is "real" - it's all prerendered, and almost none of it is actually on PS3 hardware.

It's also too bad that Sony is lying about it - a Sony exec was caught saying that the Killzone 2 stuff they were showing was real-time gameplay captured from a PS3...when the developer had already said that it's not gameplay, it's not from the PS3 hardware, and it was actually created by a special effects place...not their development house. It shows what they'd LIKE to do, but isn't real by any means.

Too bad that Sony is once again showing off a console with nothing but tech demos to back it up, and the press is eating it up. The PS2 was supposed to do Toy Story graphics... The PS1 had a wicked TRex model that you could move a camera around... Neither console got anything near what they promised they could do. I doubt this one will be any different.

I'll still get it, for the games, but I wish Sony would stop with the outright lying to us.

johnnyb · Post by **johnnyb** » May 19th, 2005, 9:23 pm

well if the xbox was playing actual games at E3 when they showed it then ps3 will be comparable or better since the ps3 is the more powerful machine.

Chronicle-Rod · Post by **Chronicle-Rod** » May 19th, 2005, 9:41 pm

Not necessarily. The PS3's Cell CPU's are unproven still, and might not be clocked as high as they've currently got specced when they have to run in a heat-rich environment like a console.

The 360 has the better GPU, which is likely to mean more in the long run. I doubt the next gen of games will come anywhere near taxing the CPU's of the consoles - much like the CPU's of current computers aren't really being worked by games, it's almost all videocard and RAM that make the difference now.

The 360 has less memory bottlenecks as well, which could be a big deal - or nothing...kind of depends how development paths go. If the big, wide-open worlds with high-res textures continue to grow in popularity...the PS3 could have problems in that regard. But all it'd take is one hit game to move things in a new direction and they'd be ok

johnnyb · Post by **johnnyb** » May 19th, 2005, 10:21 pm

I still think the ps3 will outdo the xbox360. The processor that the xbox360 uses is made by IBM, the same people that are developing the cell processor with toshiba and sony. They had made a prototype processor and that one ran at 4 GHz. You cant really say that the xbox has the better GPU they're both comparable and since nvidia runs gaming applications better then an ATI card on a normal pc I would tend to give it to the ps3 just because of their use of nvidia. ATI is a good card but it has been proven in benchmarks that ATI really isnt the better of the 2.

papa roached · Post by **papa roached** » May 19th, 2005, 11:02 pm

guess why ATi cards are a bit slower, they have better video quality

and most benchmarks i have seen are either tied or either one having a small lead

monty73741 · Post by **monty73741** » May 20th, 2005, 1:55 pm

what i didnt like about the xbox
1st microsoft owns it
2nd the controler
3rd i have to go to the gym to buy the thing
4th xbox live (got to pay for it) come one i bought the game & system..why do i have to pay for access & if ihad to pay fo access make it a web appliance
xbox 360
the press conference look pre-package
they were telling me i can pay for stages of games people make
it looks smaller but the controller looks the same

Chronicle-Rod · Post by **Chronicle-Rod** » May 20th, 2005, 3:14 pm

http://www.majornelson.com/2005/05/20/x ... rt-1-of-4/

Nuff said - the CPU performance isn't really all that lopsided. And the ATI/NVIDIA argument is dead - ATI won a while ago

johnnyb · Post by **johnnyb** » May 20th, 2005, 4:33 pm

thats a bias report from a microsoft employee. Post a 3rd party and I'd believe it more.

Another advantage of the ps3 over the xbox 360 is game titles. Sony has more contracts with the biggest game producers then microsoft does. Which means better games

Chronicle-Rod · Post by **Chronicle-Rod** » May 21st, 2005, 3:44 am

They can't make up the numbers...they're just using what Sony provided. Go ahead and prove where they're wrong.

Sony has more contacts with game industry people than MICROSOFT? What the hell are you smoking? I think DirectX has made Microsoft kind of a popular name in gaming, along with that other thing...Windows? that most of the top games run on.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/e32005/videos.htm

Go see some real gameplay footage, if your computer can handle high definition playback.

johnnyb · Post by **johnnyb** » May 21st, 2005, 9:49 am

I'm not gonna argue with you because obviously you're right....

xbox doesnt run windows but you knew that right? and that may be a hint to the fact that sony has more contracts. xbox came out after ps2 or even ps1 for that instance. And because of that sony had signed as many contracts as possible. They have the rights to the biggest and most popular games to ever hit consoles. When did EA made a whole line of games for xbox. The biggest sports game producer in the world. microsoft had to pay sony so they could get in on the rockstar contract so games like GTA could be released on their console. I can see you read bias reports from microsoft and microsoft employees just by the 2 links you posted. Go try 3rd party reviews and writeups if you want an unbiased opinion.

PS the xbox360 will be out before the ps3. If you noticed what xbox did when they came out after the ps2, putting out a more powerful machine. Sony has the opportunity to make their machine even more powerfult just because there is no rush for them to get theirs out.

Chronicle-Rod · Post by **Chronicle-Rod** » May 21st, 2005, 1:26 pm

"xbox doesnt run windows but you knew that right?"

OK - now I know you're a PS2 fanboi talking out his a--. The Xbox runs on an extremely stripped-down Windows 2000 kernel.

"and that may be a hint to the fact that sony has more contracts."

What would what it runs on have ANYTHING to do with these imaginary contracts you're talking about?

"xbox came out after ps2 or even ps1 for that instance. And because of that sony had signed as many contracts as possible. They have the rights to the biggest and most popular games to ever hit consoles."

You don't really understand how it works. If someone wants to make games for your console, they CAN - but don't HAVE to - sign exclusivity contracts. Why do you think 90% of games are multi-console?

Yeah, SOME GAMES - like, for example, Halo, are only on one console. That's because the developer is what's called a first-party. Microsoft owns the company that made it - like Sony owns Polyphony Digital, the makers of Gran Turismo.

"When did EA made a whole line of games for xbox. The biggest sports game producer in the world. microsoft had to pay sony so they could get in on the rockstar contract so games like GTA could be released on their console."

Microsoft didn't pay Sony anything - Sony doesn't own Rockstar. They just waited until the limited time exclusivity contract expired, then released it on Xbox. The exact same thing that's happening with GTA: SA.

"I can see you read bias reports from microsoft and microsoft employees just by the 2 links you posted. Go try 3rd party reviews and writeups if you want an unbiased opinion."

Go read the Anandtech report. Same damn thing - only they don't compare the CPU's as deeply, since Sony still has nothing to compare it to.

"PS the xbox360 will be out before the ps3. If you noticed what xbox did when they came out after the ps2, putting out a more powerful machine. Sony has the opportunity to make their machine even more powerfult just because there is no rush for them to get theirs out."

And Microsoft has the opportunity to do a couple things. They're the only next-gen console on the market this Christmas - that means a lot of sales to early adopters, and to those parents who see the games compared to PS2 games in the stores...not those PS3 tech demos. They also get to set the pricing for the next gen...and, as you said, Sony's going to have a lot of expensive stuff in the PS3. Sony said that it would sell for less than 50,000 yen....about $450 American.

So if Microsoft sets the 360 at $299 American, where does that leave Sony? They can't put their console $150 more than the competition, that'd be crazy.

Maybe you should look stuff up before you post it.

johnnyb · Post by **johnnyb** » May 21st, 2005, 2:09 pm

see and by these posts I can tell you're a microsoft drone that believes everything that microsoft tells him.

the deal didnt run out on rockstar. Microsoft had to pay sony. But microsoft didnt tell you that so you thought the contract ran out.

xbox runs on a stripped down windows 2000 kernal. So? Does this make it windows? no. Why? because if it was windows why would you and everyone else that owns an xbox have to go out and buy an xbox game. Why cant you just load up the PC version of the game on your xbox? because it isnt windows.

But hey man believe anything microsoft tells you, you never know they may tell you that windows is the most stable OS on the planet. I'm not going to keep posting in this thread because I can see its beginning to get out of hand and its pointless to argue about 2 consoles that are comparable.