PS4 graphics to be PowerVR Series 6 ?
in [ATI Video Cards]
|
Prev: 5750 - Different cooling packaging
Next: which driver
From: Benjamin Gawert on 28 Nov 2009 02:11 * YKhan: > Well, Nintendo used to do fine with cartridges in the olden days. > Perhaps they're going back to the modern equivalent of cartridges, > flash memory thumb drives? Most modern SD flash cards are 8 to 16GB, > meaning that they're already larger than or equal to DVD drives in > capacity, and they are still growing. Blu-Ray disk don't seem like > they offer enough of a cost advantage over flash drives. A 50GB flash drive still costs many times (magnitudes) more than a 50GB Bluray disk, so it is highly unlikely that next consoles will use flash as medium. Besides that, game publishers clearly aim to move from physical distribution to electronic distribution, not only because it is cheaper, but also because it allows them to kill the 2nd hand market (games are locked to a console/user and can't be sold) and makes other licensing models (like time-based licensing where you buy playtime) possible. Benjamin
From: Benjamin Gawert on 28 Nov 2009 02:14 * Bill Cable: > Based on what I Googled, one division of IBM is off the Cell... not > the whole of IBM. You didn't google very well then: <http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/11/end-of-the-line-for-ibms-cell.ars> Benjamin
From: YKhan on 29 Nov 2009 19:56 On Nov 28, 2:11 am, Benjamin Gawert <bgaw...(a)gmx.de> wrote: > A 50GB flash drive still costs many times (magnitudes) more than a 50GB > Bluray disk, so it is highly unlikely that next consoles will use flash > as medium. I picked up a 16GB Class 6 (highest speed class) SDHC card for $20 including shipping on Ebay. I'm sure it cost whoever was selling it much less for him to buy it. > Besides that, game publishers clearly aim to move from physical > distribution to electronic distribution, not only because it is cheaper, > but also because it allows them to kill the 2nd hand market (games are > locked to a console/user and can't be sold) and makes other licensing > models (like time-based licensing where you buy playtime) possible. That's entirely possible, and that's the reason they'd want to get rid of the optical drive. A small flash drive slot would be a much more cost effective non-permanent storage medium than a disk drive. Physical distribution isn't going away, just the optical disk physical distribution. And you can't rely on the Internet to download your games when you need them. Yousuf Khan
From: Jim on 30 Nov 2009 00:06 I play my trap card. http://www.driverheaven.net/news.php?newsid=344
From: Jim on 30 Nov 2009 00:52
"First of One" <root(a)127.0.0.1> wrote > The PS2 had 32 MB of Rambus-type system RAM with 3.2 GB/s of memory > bandwidth. The 4 MB of video RAM was embedded into the GPU's chip package > and had 9.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, so it functioned more like a large > cache. The PS2's GPU could stream textures off system RAM faster than the > Dreamcast could off local video RAM, provided the game developer exploited > this capability. You need the eDRAM's bandwidth to keep the pixel pipelines full. 3.2GB/s wont give you 2.4Gigatexels so its use for gfx is limited. RDRAM's high latency is another problem. So if you wanted to use any of the PS2's potential you had to use 8bit textures and sub SD res. Dreamcast used TBDR so it made better use of its bandwidth than a Voodoo2. Apples&Oranges > According to this document: > http://www.technology.scee.net/files/presentations/agdc2000/ThePowerOfPS2.pdf > The PS2 could also do both edge AA and even FSAA (with both supersampling > and multisampling), but early games evidently didn't use them. Sony's > early developments tools may have been crappy. The AA page was vague. Multisampling didn't come until next year with the GeForce3 and with the GS's bandwidth it would be cheap to use. Jaggies are usually the #1 complaint about PS2 gfx. |