Is this the death of the Xbox?

From a siliconvalley.com news story: "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary processors. "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC processors will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of the auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process a trillion math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 chips and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox.

In a word no. Microsoft has had an Xbox 2 ready to go for sometime now just waiting to see what Sony comes up with next. They may adjust it a little after seeing the PS3, but they are far from dead. MadDAWG

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:34:52 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >From a siliconvalley.com news story: > >"With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: >and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > >Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. Damn, and 4 times more time to program it :( Sebastien TIXIER - Game Developer Dynamics and Car Physics http://www.eden-studios.fr GPLRank Normal:-44.24 Monster:-124.44 LFS GTI Online 1:30:62 LFS GTI Offline (HLVC) 1:31:14

In article <02n9a.16172$[email hidden]>, ssmith12 @rochester.rr.com says...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > processors. > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC processors > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of the > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process a trillion > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 chips > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox.

Either my calendar is slow or it really isn't April 1 yet... -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

Massively parallel computers have been around for a long time in industry, mostly they are used for CAE and CFD type things. The software complexity is handled by writing compilers which are intelligent enough to parallelize things behind the scenes, transparently to the programmer. If Sony will step up to providing an adequate SDK with a compiler that can parallelize things like sound and video processing for you, it shouldn't be a problem. "Sebastien Tixier" <stixier@wanadoo[NO_SPAM].fr> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Damn, and 4 times more time to program it :( > > > Sebastien TIXIER - Game Developer > Dynamics and Car Physics > http://www.eden-studios.fr > GPLRank Normal:-44.24 Monster:-124.44 > LFS GTI Online 1:30:62 > LFS GTI Offline (HLVC) 1:31:14 >

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:32:18 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Massively parallel computers have been around for a long time in industry, >mostly they are used for CAE and CFD type things. The software complexity >is handled by writing compilers which are intelligent enough to parallelize >things behind the scenes, transparently to the programmer. If Sony will >step up to providing an adequate SDK with a compiler that can parallelize >things like sound and video processing for you, it shouldn't be a problem. As a game developer on PS2, i have to say that Sony dont have adequate SDK. PS2 is not "massively" parralel, but have a 5 processors : -CPU floating point op,etc.. -GS Graphic Synthetiseur -VU0 Vector Unit 0 -VU1 Vector Unit 1 ( directly connected to GS ) -IOP In/Out Processor ( sound, devices , dvdrom ) everything connected with a 300mgzhz 128bit DMA . If Sony doesn't change its politics with game developer, the PS3 will be very difficult to program. The PS2 ISalready difficult to program compare to a XBOX or a GameCube. Sebastien TIXIER - Game Developer Dynamics and Car Physics http://www.eden-studios.fr GPLRank Normal:-44.24 Monster:-124.44 LFS GTI Online 1:30:62 LFS GTI Offline (HLVC) 1:31:14

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:34:52 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. How does it stack up to the Xbox 2. Last I heard, the X2 was due out in 2005, the PS3 and successor to the GC in 2006. Could have changed of course (I love ridiculously far off planned release dates). Is Sony planning on adding a harddrive or do they want to assrape us for $25 8mb memory sticks again? Jason

WOW! Can I add a keyboard so I can run Wordperfect 4.2 for DOS? "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<02n9a.16172$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > processors. > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC processors > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of the > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process a trillion > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 chips > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox.

My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a lower price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate both the PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All) will roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:34:52 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > > How does it stack up to the Xbox 2. Last I heard, the X2 was due out > in 2005, the PS3 and successor to the GC in 2006. Could have changed > of course (I love ridiculously far off planned release dates). > > Is Sony planning on adding a harddrive or do they want to assrape us > for $25 8mb memory sticks again? > > Jason

XBOX Lite is not XBOX Next, 2 different things all together. Xbox Lite is just a stripped down version of the current XBOX. Most say PS3 XBOX2 is sometime 2005-2006. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qHs9a.9982$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a lower > price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate both the > PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All) will > roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:34:52 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > > > > How does it stack up to the Xbox 2. Last I heard, the X2 was due out > > in 2005, the PS3 and successor to the GC in 2006. Could have changed > > of course (I love ridiculously far off planned release dates). > > > > Is Sony planning on adding a harddrive or do they want to assrape us > > for $25 8mb memory sticks again? > > > > Jason > >

Hopefully it was clear that I meant the "massively parallel" comment in regards to PS3, not PS2. And if the complexity goes up that much I don't see how they will have any choice but to step up to doing a better SDK. Besides, Sony's SDK isn't really the only choice is it? On PS2 I believe you can use Renderware instead. So if Sony won't step up to the plate maybe somebody else will. "Sebastien Tixier" <stixier@wanadoo[NO_SPAM].fr> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > As a game developer on PS2, i have to say that Sony dont have adequate > SDK. > > PS2 is not "massively" parralel, but have a 5 processors : >

1. they still arn't sure if they can do it and 2. Programing will be a gut ache and i dought many programmers will take the time. 3. with all that proccessing power how big will the games be and on what type of cd will it come and 4. i have also heard that the p3 is no longer looking at being a concole machine, its being developed simular to a settop box that will handle every need of the home. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:02n9a.16172$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > processors. > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC

processors > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of the > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process atrillion > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 chips > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > >

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:00:22 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a lower >price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate both the >PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All) will >roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? Damn. The other thing I'm wondering is how much a machine with 72 RISC chips is going to cost. Even if they sell at half or one third of the cost to build, that's got to be like $3k to 4k at least... Not to mention the cooling requirements, the mainframe-sized case, etc. Sounds like a killer machine if what they're proposing is true, but just looking at how much similar RISC solutions (well as close as we can get, like a fully loaded Sunfire) cost, I dunno. Jason

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:41:03 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hopefully it was clear that I meant the "massively parallel" comment in >regards to PS3, not PS2. I understood that, i just wanted to tell that the PS2 is alread a parallel machine. >And if the complexity goes up that much I don't >see how they will have any choice but to step up to doing a better SDK. >Besides, Sony's SDK isn't really the only choice is it? On PS2 I believe >you can use Renderware instead. So if Sony won't step up to the plate maybe >somebody else will. Renderware .. :) Rednerware is a great tool, but it cant compete with a 3D engine developed internaly. Look at GTA3, its a shame the frame rate often slow down to 15fps. Sebastien TIXIER - Game Developer Dynamics and Car Physics http://www.eden-studios.fr GPLRank Normal:-44.24 Monster:-124.44 LFS GTI Online 1:30:62 LFS GTI Offline (HLVC) 1:31:14

'k - I admit it: I edited out a comment from Epic Games saying that programming for the PS3 looks to be a LOT more difficult. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b45udt$1sr8u2$[email hidden]... > Hopefully it was clear that I meant the "massively parallel" comment in > regards to PS3, not PS2. And if the complexity goes up that much I don't > see how they will have any choice but to step up to doing a better SDK. > Besides, Sony's SDK isn't really the only choice is it? On PS2 I believe > you can use Renderware instead. So if Sony won't step up to the platemaybe

Quoted text (13 lines)

> somebody else will. > > "Sebastien Tixier" <stixier@wanadoo[NO_SPAM].fr> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > As a game developer on PS2, i have to say that Sony dont have adequate > > SDK. > > > > PS2 is not "massively" parralel, but have a 5 processors : > > > > >

Sony wouldn't be doing this if the PS3 was going to cost MORE. As rich as Sony is, they know they can't bleed MS to death by underpricing/dumping the PS2/3 (MS is losing a billion bucks a year on the Xbox - at this rate, they'll be broke by A.D. 2400!) Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive. My guess is they'll be using something like Flash memory in the nextgen consoles. Like the hoary razor-blade paradigm, the h/w will come down to $100 and they'll have to score some MAJOR hits with $25-$40 games. This is where Sony shines...and where MS is weak. Which is why Sony will rule the currently contested turf, and MS will move upscale, positioning the Xbox 2 as a living-room device, a PC-TV convergence appliance. Can MS succeed here? Watch BMW and wireless convergence devices (cells, PDAs). If MS can get BMW's UI back on track, they might be able to win the battle for yer couch. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:00:22 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a lower > >price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate both the > >PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All) will > >roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? > > Damn. > > The other thing I'm wondering is how much a machine with 72 RISC chips > is going to cost. Even if they sell at half or one third of the cost > to build, that's got to be like $3k to 4k at least... Not to mention > the cooling requirements, the mainframe-sized case, etc. Sounds like > a killer machine if what they're proposing is true, but just looking > at how much similar RISC solutions (well as close as we can get, like > a fully loaded Sunfire) cost, I dunno. > > Jason

No, but you'll be able to run Office 3000 (referring to the price, not the next millennium). "nathantw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > WOW! Can I add a keyboard so I can run Wordperfect 4.2 for DOS? > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<02n9a.16172$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: > > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > > processors. > > > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC

processors > > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many ofthe > > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process atrillion > > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4chips > > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox.

1. They can...and will. 2. When a game like Gran Turismo can gross over a billion U.S. dollars, it's worth the "gut ache". 3. Blue laser. 4. No, that's the Xbox 2. "Hoefsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3e668c92$0$13169$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> 1. they still arn't sure if they can do it and 2. Programing will be a gut > ache and i dought many programmers will take the time. 3. with all that > proccessing power how big will the games be and on what type of cd will it > come and 4. i have also heard that the p3 is no longer looking at being a > concole machine, its being developed simular to a settop box that will > handle every need of the home. > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:02n9a.16172$[email hidden]... > > From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: > > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > > processors. > > > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC > processors > > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of

the > > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process a > trillion > > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4chips

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > > > > > >

"Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive" Every look at the cost of flash memory compared to HD memory lately? HD are much cheaper. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5ZG9a.2445$[email hidden]... > Sony wouldn't be doing this if the PS3 was going to cost MORE. As rich as > Sony is, they know they can't bleed MS to death by underpricing/dumpingthe > PS2/3 (MS is losing a billion bucks a year on the Xbox - at this rate, > they'll be broke by A.D. 2400!) Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive. My > guess is they'll be using something like Flash memory in the nextgen > consoles. Like the hoary razor-blade paradigm, the h/w will come down to > $100 and they'll have to score some MAJOR hits with $25-$40 games. Thisis > where Sony shines...and where MS is weak. Which is why Sony will rule the > currently contested turf, and MS will move upscale, positioning the Xbox 2 > as a living-room device, a PC-TV convergence appliance. Can MS succeed > here? Watch BMW and wireless convergence devices (cells, PDAs). If MScan

Quoted text (9 lines)

> get BMW's UI back on track, they might be able to win the battle for yer > couch. > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:00:22 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a

lower > > >price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate boththe > > >PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All)will

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? > > > > Damn. > > > > The other thing I'm wondering is how much a machine with 72 RISC chips > > is going to cost. Even if they sell at half or one third of the cost > > to build, that's got to be like $3k to 4k at least... Not to mention > > the cooling requirements, the mainframe-sized case, etc. Sounds like > > a killer machine if what they're proposing is true, but just looking > > at how much similar RISC solutions (well as close as we can get, like > > a fully loaded Sunfire) cost, I dunno. > > > > Jason > >

No need for blue laser, current games don't fill DVDs as is, lots of room to work with yet on current media. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0H9a.2447$[email hidden]... > 1. They can...and will. > > 2. When a game like Gran Turismo can gross over a billion U.S. dollars,it's

Quoted text (9 lines)

> worth the "gut ache". > > 3. Blue laser. > > 4. No, that's the Xbox 2. > > "Hoefsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3e668c92$0$13169$[email hidden]... > > 1. they still arn't sure if they can do it and 2. Programing will be a

gut > > ache and i dought many programmers will take the time. 3. with all that > > proccessing power how big will the games be and on what type of cd willit > > come and 4. i have also heard that the p3 is no longer looking at beinga

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > concole machine, its being developed simular to a settop box that will > > handle every need of the home. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:02n9a.16172$[email hidden]... > > > From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > > > > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single

chip:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > > > processors. > > > > > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC > > processors > > > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of > the > > > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > > > > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > > > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process a > > trillion > > > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 > chips > > > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > > > > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Yes, but HDs are near the end of their cycle; flash mem is at the beginning. HDs aren't getting cheaper, they're getting bigger. There is a base cost in gear like cases, motors, heads, etc. - all those 'spensive moving parts. So we're not getting 80-Mb. HDs for $10, we're getting 80-Gb HDs for $100. SSNV (solid-state non-volatile) mem will go the other way - we'll be getting 256-Mb. Flash cards for $10. "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WfH9a.19075$[email hidden]... > "Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive" > Every look at the cost of flash memory compared to HD memory lately? HDare > much cheaper. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5ZG9a.2445$[email hidden]... > > Sony wouldn't be doing this if the PS3 was going to cost MORE. As richas > > Sony is, they know they can't bleed MS to death by underpricing/dumping > the > > PS2/3 (MS is losing a billion bucks a year on the Xbox - at this rate, > > they'll be broke by A.D. 2400!) Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive.My > > guess is they'll be using something like Flash memory in the nextgen > > consoles. Like the hoary razor-blade paradigm, the h/w will come downto > > $100 and they'll have to score some MAJOR hits with $25-$40 games. This > is > > where Sony shines...and where MS is weak. Which is why Sony will rulethe > > currently contested turf, and MS will move upscale, positioning the Xbox2

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > as a living-room device, a PC-TV convergence appliance. Can MS succeed > > here? Watch BMW and wireless convergence devices (cells, PDAs). If MS > can > > get BMW's UI back on track, they might be able to win the battle for yer > > couch. > > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:00:22 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a > lower > > > >price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate both > the > > > >PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All) > will > > > >roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? > > > > > > Damn. > > > > > > The other thing I'm wondering is how much a machine with 72 RISC chips > > > is going to cost. Even if they sell at half or one third of the cost > > > to build, that's got to be like $3k to 4k at least... Not to mention > > > the cooling requirements, the mainframe-sized case, etc. Sounds like > > > a killer machine if what they're proposing is true, but just looking > > > at how much similar RISC solutions (well as close as we can get, like > > > a fully loaded Sunfire) cost, I dunno. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > >

With all that processing power, Sony will want to produce bigger games w/o having to do a lot of extra programming. You could have a flite sim, for example, with every square meter of the earth's surface (or at least that already scanned by satellites) on the disk. "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hhH9a.19077$[email hidden]... > No need for blue laser, current games don't fill DVDs as is, lots of roomto

Quoted text (19 lines)

> work with yet on current media. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0H9a.2447$[email hidden]... > > 1. They can...and will. > > > > 2. When a game like Gran Turismo can gross over a billion U.S. dollars, > it's > > worth the "gut ache". > > > > 3. Blue laser. > > > > 4. No, that's the Xbox 2. > > > > "Hoefsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3e668c92$0$13169$[email hidden]... > > > 1. they still arn't sure if they can do it and 2. Programing will be a > gut > > > ache and i dought many programmers will take the time. 3. with all

that > > > proccessing power how big will the games be and on what type of cdwill > it > > > come and 4. i have also heard that the p3 is no longer looking atbeing

Quoted text (10 lines)

> a > > > concole machine, its being developed simular to a settop box that will > > > handle every need of the home. > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:02n9a.16172$[email hidden]... > > > > From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > > > > > > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single > chip: > > > > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight

auxiliary > > > > processors. > > > > > > > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC > > > processors > > > > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as manyof

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > the > > > > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > > > > > > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > > > > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process a > > > trillion > > > > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 > > chips > > > > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > > > > > > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Yes eventually but not today or tomorrow, flash is still expensive which was my point. If we are talking theory and 10 years down the road then fine but not in the next year which is the timeframe for the next gen consoles to be designed. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%MH9a.2355$[email hidden]... > Yes, but HDs are near the end of their cycle; flash mem is at thebeginning. > HDs aren't getting cheaper, they're getting bigger. There is a base costin > gear like cases, motors, heads, etc. - all those 'spensive moving parts.So > we're not getting 80-Mb. HDs for $10, we're getting 80-Gb HDs for $100. > SSNV (solid-state non-volatile) mem will go the other way - we'll begetting

Quoted text (12 lines)

> 256-Mb. Flash cards for $10. > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:WfH9a.19075$[email hidden]... > > "Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive" > > Every look at the cost of flash memory compared to HD memory lately? HD > are > > much cheaper. > > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:5ZG9a.2445$[email hidden]... > > > Sony wouldn't be doing this if the PS3 was going to cost MORE. As

rich > as > > > Sony is, they know they can't bleed MS to death byunderpricing/dumping

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > the > > > PS2/3 (MS is losing a billion bucks a year on the Xbox - at this rate, > > > they'll be broke by A.D. 2400!) Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive. > My > > > guess is they'll be using something like Flash memory in the nextgen > > > consoles. Like the hoary razor-blade paradigm, the h/w will come down > to > > > $100 and they'll have to score some MAJOR hits with $25-$40 games.

This > > is > > > where Sony shines...and where MS is weak. Which is why Sony will rule > the > > > currently contested turf, and MS will move upscale, positioning theXbox > 2 > > > as a living-room device, a PC-TV convergence appliance. Can MSsucceed > > > here? Watch BMW and wireless convergence devices (cells, PDAs). IfMS > > can > > > get BMW's UI back on track, they might be able to win the battle foryer

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > couch. > > > > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:00:22 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a > > lower > > > > >price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate

both

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > the > > > > >PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All) > > will > > > > >roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? > > > > > > > > Damn. > > > > > > > > The other thing I'm wondering is how much a machine with 72 RISC

chips > > > > is going to cost. Even if they sell at half or one third of thecost > > > > to build, that's got to be like $3k to 4k at least... Not tomention > > > > the cooling requirements, the mainframe-sized case, etc. Soundslike > > > > a killer machine if what they're proposing is true, but just looking > > > > at how much similar RISC solutions (well as close as we can get,like

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > a fully loaded Sunfire) cost, I dunno. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > >

Not all storage pricing is based on 'reality'. Much of it is based on 'perceived value'. Larry "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WfH9a.19075$[email hidden]... > "Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive" > Every look at the cost of flash memory compared to HD memory lately? HDare > much cheaper. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5ZG9a.2445$[email hidden]... > > Sony wouldn't be doing this if the PS3 was going to cost MORE. As richas > > Sony is, they know they can't bleed MS to death by underpricing/dumping > the > > PS2/3 (MS is losing a billion bucks a year on the Xbox - at this rate, > > they'll be broke by A.D. 2400!) Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive.My > > guess is they'll be using something like Flash memory in the nextgen > > consoles. Like the hoary razor-blade paradigm, the h/w will come downto > > $100 and they'll have to score some MAJOR hits with $25-$40 games. This > is > > where Sony shines...and where MS is weak. Which is why Sony will rulethe > > currently contested turf, and MS will move upscale, positioning the Xbox2

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > as a living-room device, a PC-TV convergence appliance. Can MS succeed > > here? Watch BMW and wireless convergence devices (cells, PDAs). If MS > can > > get BMW's UI back on track, they might be able to win the battle for yer > > couch. > > > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:00:22 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >My sources say MS wants the Xbox Next (i.e., Lite, w/o a HD, with a > lower > > > >price point) in stores before Xmas. That would tend to indicate both > the > > > >PS3 and the Xbox 2 (Internet Appliance/Set-Top Convergence Duz-All) > will > > > >roll out before Xmas '04. Exciting times, huh? > > > > > > Damn. > > > > > > The other thing I'm wondering is how much a machine with 72 RISC chips > > > is going to cost. Even if they sell at half or one third of the cost > > > to build, that's got to be like $3k to 4k at least... Not to mention > > > the cooling requirements, the mainframe-sized case, etc. Sounds like > > > a killer machine if what they're proposing is true, but just looking > > > at how much similar RISC solutions (well as close as we can get, like > > > a fully loaded Sunfire) cost, I dunno. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > >

In re 4. (below), I should reiterate: Sony is at least as interested as Microsoft in convergence...maybe more so. MS is opportunistic; Sony is committed. This from Mercury news: ------------------ Besides the PlayStation 3 game console, Sony and its partners, IBM and Toshiba, hope to use the same basic chip design -- which organizes small groups of microprocessors to work together like bees in a hive -- for a range of computing devices, from tiny handheld personal digital assistants to the largest corporate servers. If key technical hurdles are overcome, the "cell microprocessor" technology, described in a patent Sony quietly secured in September, could help the Japanese electronics giant achieve the industry's holy grail: a cheap, all-in-one box for the home that can record television shows, surf the Net in 3-D, play music and run movie-like video games. ------------------ "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0H9a.2447$[email hidden]... > 1. They can...and will. > > 2. When a game like Gran Turismo can gross over a billion U.S. dollars,it's

Quoted text (9 lines)

> worth the "gut ache". > > 3. Blue laser. > > 4. No, that's the Xbox 2. > > "Hoefsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3e668c92$0$13169$[email hidden]... > > 1. they still arn't sure if they can do it and 2. Programing will be a

gut > > ache and i dought many programmers will take the time. 3. with all that > > proccessing power how big will the games be and on what type of cd willit > > come and 4. i have also heard that the p3 is no longer looking at beinga

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > concole machine, its being developed simular to a settop box that will > > handle every need of the home. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:02n9a.16172$[email hidden]... > > > From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > > > > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single

chip:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > > > processors. > > > > > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC > > processors > > > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of > the > > > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > > > > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > > > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process a > > trillion > > > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 > chips > > > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > > > > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > > > > > > > > > > > >

read this article from WAY BACK when, may 2001 when wired first covered the story of the ps3 and its forerunner, the GSCUBE. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.05/gs3.html amazing stuff. and as regards to SDRAM cards, the company i work for are aiming for an early release of 2005 for our 5gig SDRAM cards, amazing things these, tiny but mighty. pez "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:02n9a.16172$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> From a siliconvalley.com news story: > > "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: > eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary > processors. > > "Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC

processors > will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of the > auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them. > > "...Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those > processors at maximum efficiency, the PS3 will be able to process atrillion > math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 chips > and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS2." > > Or abt. 500 times faster than the Xbox. > >

On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:14:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sony wouldn't be doing this if the PS3 was going to cost MORE. As rich as >Sony is, they know they can't bleed MS to death by underpricing/dumping the >PS2/3 (MS is losing a billion bucks a year on the Xbox - at this rate, >they'll be broke by A.D. 2400!) Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive. Even if they were able to attain chips at the cost of $50 each (which is a fraction of what RISC, chips, PowerPC in particular, cost to manufacture), you'd be looking at $3600 for the CPU's alone. I highly suspect that the 72-cpu thing is either a gag or mis-reported news (by whomever you took that info from, not you). Currently the most powerful machine you can buy (not counting supercomputers here) in terms of sheer processing power is a Sunfire 15k which supports 106 1.2gHz UltraSparc III CPU's (which cost roughtly the same as a current PowerPC to produce). Base price for the 72 CPU model is $3.052,730.00. Now, I'm not going to claim that the production costs of a 72 CPU PowerPC based machine is going to even be 1/100th of that (doubtful a PS3 would have 288GB of RAM or a 72GB disk), but still. Jason

On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:42:35 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:14:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Sony wouldn't be doing this if the PS3 was going to cost MORE. As rich as >>Sony is, they know they can't bleed MS to death by underpricing/dumping the >>PS2/3 (MS is losing a billion bucks a year on the Xbox - at this rate, >>they'll be broke by A.D. 2400!) Chips are cheap. HDs are expensive. > >Even if they were able to attain chips at the cost of $50 each (which >is a fraction of what RISC, chips, PowerPC in particular, cost to >manufacture), you'd be looking at $3600 for the CPU's alone. I highly >suspect that the 72-cpu thing is either a gag or mis-reported news (by >whomever you took that info from, not you).

hint: "With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a ----->single chip:<----- eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary processors."

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 02:48:31 +0100, Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> wrote: >"With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a >----->single chip:<----- eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which >controls eight auxiliary processors." Ahhhh. Yeah that should be a bit of a clue I suppose. Still, I've been reading that the early 16-cpu version of the PS3 takes up about 10 rack spaces and requires an SGI workstation as a controller. While I have faith that they'll sort everything out, I still can't see the cost being remotely reasonable in the near future. Jason

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 02:09:46 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 02:48:31 +0100, Magnus Svensson ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>"With the PS3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a >>----->single chip:<----- eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which >>controls eight auxiliary processors." > >Ahhhh. Yeah that should be a bit of a clue I suppose. > >Still, I've been reading that the early 16-cpu version of the PS3 >takes up about 10 rack spaces and requires an SGI workstation as a >controller.

Yeah, but that's probably an emulator. Don't put too much stock in that. I've seen xilinx emulators of relatively simple integrated circuits that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. > While I have faith that they'll sort everything out, I >still can't see the cost being remotely reasonable in the near future. If they can fit it on one chip, cost isn't necessarily the issue. There's a limit how expensive one chip can be, especially given these quantities. While I'm sure they're banking on progress in foundry manufacturing processes, it's possible, I guess.