I must just be stupid.

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Tom
My little Compaq computer has cost me a total of about $400.(hot deals, so not typical, but doable) The relevant stats for speed..

Athlon64 3500+
1.5gig ddr ram dual channel
EVGA 7900GT 256mb

This is probably typical of what a lot of current pc gamers have for a system, how does it compare to the PS3 as far as gaming potential ?

Well I know when I play need for speed on my HDTV and compare it to an XBOX 360 there is no real comparison. The PC just seems to have higher details and is smoother.

How do you have 1.5 gbs of ram in dual channel?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Tom
My little Compaq computer has cost me a total of about $400.(hot deals, so not typical, but doable) The relevant stats for speed..

Athlon64 3500+
1.5gig ddr ram dual channel
EVGA 7900GT 256mb

This is probably typical of what a lot of current pc gamers have for a system, how does it compare to the PS3 as far as gaming potential ?

Well I know when I play need for speed on my HDTV and compare it to an XBOX 360 there is no real comparison. The PC just seems to have higher details and is smoother.

How do you have 1.5 gbs of ram in dual channel?

2 256mb modules and 2 512mb modules.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: thequinox
I have to agree with the rest of the people on this thread, I personally think 1080 is a huge resolution to play games at. Most people game at 1280x1024 native or 1440x900 if they are using a wide screen. I put this post under CPU because it was originally a question about the power of the "cell" processor. I just don't see how these systems can outperform/match the power of a PC running at those resolutions, even if they are sold at a loss.

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I agree. Why they didn't use a core duo or something similar is beyond me. Especially since their graphics are taken right from tech in the PC sector. I would think using more standard PC components would make ports of games across platforms a much easier undertaking.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: stardrek
I can tell you that the Xbox 360 does indeed get patches from Xbox Live. My 360 has already downloaded a patch and a game, DOA:4 has also downloaded a patch for itself as well. I hope this does not lead to the same problem that has started to come with games in the PC market, where they sell a game that isn't really finished and use patches to fix the issues. Games need to come out when they are finished, not on a faux-timeline.

QFT. This is one of the main selling points of the console version of a game.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: thequinox
I have to agree with the rest of the people on this thread, I personally think 1080 is a huge resolution to play games at. Most people game at 1280x1024 native or 1440x900 if they are using a wide screen. I put this post under CPU because it was originally a question about the power of the "cell" processor. I just don't see how these systems can outperform/match the power of a PC running at those resolutions, even if they are sold at a loss.

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I agree. Why they didn't use a core duo or something similar is beyond me. Especially since their graphics are taken right from tech in the PC sector. I would think using more standard PC components would make ports of games across platforms a much easier undertaking.

Microsoft tried that with the original xbox remmeber. people were buying them and turning them into cheap computers.

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: thequinox
I have to agree with the rest of the people on this thread, I personally think 1080 is a huge resolution to play games at. Most people game at 1280x1024 native or 1440x900 if they are using a wide screen. I put this post under CPU because it was originally a question about the power of the "cell" processor. I just don't see how these systems can outperform/match the power of a PC running at those resolutions, even if they are sold at a loss.

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I agree. Why they didn't use a core duo or something similar is beyond me. Especially since their graphics are taken right from tech in the PC sector. I would think using more standard PC components would make ports of games across platforms a much easier undertaking.

Microsoft tried that with the original xbox remmeber. people were buying them and turning them into cheap computers.

also the CPUs in the xb360 and PS3 are designed to mesh with the overall system. Consoles promote overall harmony between the components within the box.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: thequinox
I have to agree with the rest of the people on this thread, I personally think 1080 is a huge resolution to play games at. Most people game at 1280x1024 native or 1440x900 if they are using a wide screen. I put this post under CPU because it was originally a question about the power of the "cell" processor. I just don't see how these systems can outperform/match the power of a PC running at those resolutions, even if they are sold at a loss.

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I agree. Why they didn't use a core duo or something similar is beyond me. Especially since their graphics are taken right from tech in the PC sector. I would think using more standard PC components would make ports of games across platforms a much easier undertaking.

Reason 1: IBM was cheaper. IBM has a division that, for a price, would design a chip and sell the design. Intel would have only been willing to sell the chip directly, which they did with the Xbox, and made it extremely difficult for Microsoft to decrease costs over the time since none of the parts in the xbox were getting cheaper isnce they were buying them outright.

Reason 2: By going for a triple core cpu, the additional cores can be used to handle things, such as audio processing and encoding, that normally would require expensive additional discrete hardware, raising costs.

also the CPUs in the xb360 and PS3 are designed to mesh with the overall system. Consoles promote overall harmony between the components within the box.

Xbox 360's cpu was chosen mainly for cost reasons (not to say it isn't good enough for what they're doing).

PS3 was originally planned to go for a dual cell setup with as minimal as possible a gpu, similar to the Ps2. Sony eventually realized that they wouldn't be able to compete with the established development advantages of openGL and a traditional PC gpu, along with the performance. Cell seems to be pretty much a byproduct of their earlier vision, just kept around because they already invested all the money in it and didn't have the time or money to invest in something more suited to a PC gpu. However, they have invested time and effort into making Cell and the nvidia gpu work together as well as possible, but it won't be as cohesive as the original all-Cell design would have been.

 

[DaNorthface]

also remember that the console are worth more that you pay for them. The reason why they aren't that expensive is because they want you to get the consoles. Once you have them, you'll be paying for it by buying games.

 

[Duvie]

except I am getting great deals on used games....

23.00 shipped for PGR3...not a scratch and runs perfect

30.00 shipped for Ghost recon...not a scratch and runs perfect

got a few other deals pending but trying not to spend more then 30 on any of them....


I am sorry but I like the console with the big screen in the family room and my PC in my office...I perfer gaming on consoles and playing with the xbox 360 has only reaffirmed that....

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Duvie
except I am getting great deals on used games....

23.00 shipped for PGR3...not a scratch and runs perfect

30.00 shipped for Ghost recon...not a scratch and runs perfect

got a few other deals pending but trying not to spend more then 30 on any of them....


I am sorry but I like the console with the big screen in the family room and my PC in my office...I perfer gaming on consoles and playing with the xbox 360 has only reaffirmed that....

plus the console makers dont get anything from games that are resold ;-)

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: DaNorthface
also remember that the console are worth more that you pay for them. The reason why they aren't that expensive is because they want you to get the consoles. Once you have them, you'll be paying for it by buying games.

Believe it or not, it's really only the Xbox that was designed to take a loss. The rest of the consoles are designed to be sold at cost, though initial unexpected production difficulties usually cause the console to be sold at a loss, however it doesn't continue over the life of the console. I'd expect it to be the same for Playstation 3, though once again they'll likely have initial production difficulties that cause it to be sold at a loss, possibly significant. (like the ps2's initial production difficulties added like 50% cost to the initial launch shipment, but that dropped to around 10% in the immediately following shipments; 10% loss is pretty typical of a newly launched console though, and usually the highest any manufactuer is willing to maintain over extended periods of time if they need to)

 

[Rangoric]

The PS3 is the first console by Sony to be sold at a loss. The PS2 was sold at a loss early on, but the intial design was a net gain per system sold. The other Big Name that was sold at a loss was the XBox. The FIRST system was the Saturn.

Here is a fun read on the subject

http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
The PS3 is the first console by Sony to be sold at a loss. The PS2 was sold at a loss early on, but the intial design was a net gain per system sold. The other Big Name that was sold at a loss was the XBox. The FIRST system was the Saturn.

Here is a fun read on the subject

http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html

Huh, I would have figured at $400, the Saturn was at least breaking even. Though it did have an awful lot of hardware in it, didn't Hitachi sell a version of the Saturn for $800 that provided GPS functionality?

Dreamcast was sold for a loss? That surprises me for 2 reasons..
1. The hardware, though powerful, was rather barebones, it had a simplistic design and saved some money on fast ram by using a TBDR.
2. Sega was very, very aggressive with price cuts, didn't they cut $100 off the price within the first year in America? Actually I think it was more like the first 9 months. I don't think they'd have cut prices so fast unless the system was cheap to make.

BTW, did Sega really buy parts from someone else, or just contract someone else to fab the parts, because they're a huge difference between the two. Buying parts from someone else has proven to be inferior (you save on R and D, but you don't get price cuts), but outsourcing fabbing (like Nintendo has always done, and like Microsoft did with the 360) doesn't seem to work out badly, especially with econmoies of scale as large as consoles. That article is a bit too excited about outsourcing production being the reason for high costs, it's buying parts out right that screws you over, something which I'm not sure if anyone other than Microsoft has ever done. Maybe sega has, but most of their parts tended to be generic that were already massively and cheaply produced, and could be had from multiple manufactuers. Well, except for the dreamcast, I don't know how they worked that one, but the Saturn and the Genesis both used fairly generic parts. (except for the cpu and graphics processor, the dreamcast was all generic parts due that benefitted from being mass produced whether sega used them or not)

The article also mentions how long it takes sony to recoup the losses from building the foundries and what not for their products. Considering Sega, Nintendo, and Microsoft haven't sold anywhere near as well as Sony's consoles have, it probably works out better economically for them to outsource production anyway, since as long as they're not buying specialty parts outright (like microsoft with the xbox), it's going to be fairly cheap anyway.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: DaNorthface
also remember that the console are worth more that you pay for them. The reason why they aren't that expensive is because they want you to get the consoles. Once you have them, you'll be paying for it by buying games.

Believe it or not, it's really only the Xbox that was designed to take a loss. The rest of the consoles are designed to be sold at cost, though initial unexpected production difficulties usually cause the console to be sold at a loss, however it doesn't continue over the life of the console. I'd expect it to be the same for Playstation 3, though once again they'll likely have initial production difficulties that cause it to be sold at a loss, possibly significant. (like the ps2's initial production difficulties added like 50% cost to the initial launch shipment, but that dropped to around 10% in the immediately following shipments; 10% loss is pretty typical of a newly launched console though, and usually the highest any manufactuer is willing to maintain over extended periods of time if they need to)

PS1 was sold at a loss at launch
PS2 was sold at a loss at launch
PS3 will be sold at a loss
xbox sold at a loss
xbox 360 sold at a loss

There have been others in the past. I dont think Nintendo ever had one console on which they didnt not make money on every one that was sold.

Oh and that article is wrong on many points. The gamecube was not sold at a loss. The original playstation was sold at a loss and so was the playstation 2. Now the Playstation One did net profit for sony. ;-)

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: DaNorthface
also remember that the console are worth more that you pay for them. The reason why they aren't that expensive is because they want you to get the consoles. Once you have them, you'll be paying for it by buying games.

Believe it or not, it's really only the Xbox that was designed to take a loss. The rest of the consoles are designed to be sold at cost, though initial unexpected production difficulties usually cause the console to be sold at a loss, however it doesn't continue over the life of the console. I'd expect it to be the same for Playstation 3, though once again they'll likely have initial production difficulties that cause it to be sold at a loss, possibly significant. (like the ps2's initial production difficulties added like 50% cost to the initial launch shipment, but that dropped to around 10% in the immediately following shipments; 10% loss is pretty typical of a newly launched console though, and usually the highest any manufactuer is willing to maintain over extended periods of time if they need to)

PS1 was sold at a loss at launch
PS2 was sold at a loss at launch
PS3 will be sold at a loss
xbox sold at a loss
xbox 360 sold at a loss

There have been others in the past. I dont think Nintendo ever had one console on which they didnt not make money on every one that was sold.

Oh and that article is wrong on many points. The gamecube was not sold at a loss. The original playstation was sold at a loss and so was the playstation 2. Now the Playstation One did net profit for sony. ;-)

The consoles aren't designed to be sold at a loss, usually within 6 months of launch they're making profit on them (or breaking even), the xbox is the only one that was designed to take losses nonstop. Nintendo stated it lost some money on each gamecube at launch and it was its first system to do so.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: DaNorthface
also remember that the console are worth more that you pay for them. The reason why they aren't that expensive is because they want you to get the consoles. Once you have them, you'll be paying for it by buying games.

Believe it or not, it's really only the Xbox that was designed to take a loss. The rest of the consoles are designed to be sold at cost, though initial unexpected production difficulties usually cause the console to be sold at a loss, however it doesn't continue over the life of the console. I'd expect it to be the same for Playstation 3, though once again they'll likely have initial production difficulties that cause it to be sold at a loss, possibly significant. (like the ps2's initial production difficulties added like 50% cost to the initial launch shipment, but that dropped to around 10% in the immediately following shipments; 10% loss is pretty typical of a newly launched console though, and usually the highest any manufactuer is willing to maintain over extended periods of time if they need to)

PS1 was sold at a loss at launch
PS2 was sold at a loss at launch
PS3 will be sold at a loss
xbox sold at a loss
xbox 360 sold at a loss

There have been others in the past. I dont think Nintendo ever had one console on which they didnt not make money on every one that was sold.

Oh and that article is wrong on many points. The gamecube was not sold at a loss. The original playstation was sold at a loss and so was the playstation 2. Now the Playstation One did net profit for sony. ;-)

The consoles aren't designed to be sold at a loss, usually within 6 months of launch they're making profit on them (or breaking even), the xbox is the only one that was designed to take losses nonstop. Nintendo stated it lost some money on each gamecube at launch and it was its first system to do so.

Depends on how you look at costs. If you figure an amount for r&D, operations, marketing ect. then the first few gamecubes might have been sold at a "loss" but there really was marginal income (i.e. they were better off selling it even with no game revenues) The other systems resulted in a marginal loss for each console sold since the parts and manufactuering alone where higher than the selling price.

 

[Tom]

Aren't Blu-ray drives made by Sony ? If they are, I think it's baloney that the PS3 is being sold at a loss. Only way this could be true is by giving the Blu-ray drive a high cost, but I bet in reality Blu-ray drives cost about as much as standard dvd drives to produce. So the real per unit cost to Sony is probably very low.

 

[eastvillager]

I'll have been gaming at 1920x1200 on my PC for over 2 years before the ps3 even ships, much less plays games at 1080p.

The only real reason I game on consoles now and then is that consoles have games that the PC does not.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Tom
Aren't Blu-ray drives made by Sony ? If they are, I think it's baloney that the PS3 is being sold at a loss. Only way this could be true is by giving the Blu-ray drive a high cost, but I bet in reality Blu-ray drives cost about as much as standard dvd drives to produce. So the real per unit cost to Sony is probably very low.

Sony outsource their production of drives. Most have been made by liteon and then badged sony and then a price tag for 3 times the amount is put on the box.