WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

New next-gen consoles show horrible CPU performance

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
165
157
#3
The link broke - I'll fix it tomorrow when it will hopefully be back up.

The performance of the XBox 360's CPU is only double that of the XBox in real world performance - so in other words it's performance is only three times faster than the Dreamcast's, which is equivalent to a 550MHz P3.

My my, we've come such a long way in seven years! What the fuck ever happened to "Okay guys, we're gonna leapfrog PC technology and kick ass!"

My prediction - the Nintendo revolution will have a diffrent architecture because Nintendo designs it's systems to be developer centric - as did Sega. So I'm predicting another 1980's style Nintendo monopoly, and as an alternate ending Sega will re-enter again because they have a similar console design approach to Nintendo. The Saturn wasn't hard - just using it's second CPU was hard. And the Master System/Game Gear, Genesis, and ESPECIALLY Dreamcast were very friendly as were the NES, SNES, Game Boy Series, N64, and GameCube.

So now I feel we are going to rely on one or possibly two hardware companies again - because game designers are no different than artists. What Sony and M$ have given the artists is a smll canvas (CPU), with WAY too many fucking colors for that canvas (GPU). This is the first ass-backwards approach like ever used for console design, and it's going to possibly kill of Sony and M$ when no games come out. Because neither system has any advantages.

They should have used their heads - no console has any advatage besides the XBox 360's price - which should be $300. But the PS2 costs $494 to make and will retail for $400 - so it will be just like Saturn but with more financial loss.

It's not like developers are going to use either of them, let alone one over the other. It's not like the old days where SNES developers mainly created more audiovisually pleasing titles with more static playing fields, and Genesis developers chose the system for it's much faster CPU, which could easily calculate 2D physics, and perform the sprite scaling and rotation functions of the SNES (besides Mode 7) via software rendering, but lacked the vast amount of colors and had a crappy AV system.

So in essence it's like pointless competition. Not many developers will like the Sony system or the M$ system, and no system will really have an advatage. It's somewhat like the 3D0 except that they use different architectures, but in the end you have the same system, just with different price points.
 

Fire_ze_Missles

Martha Fuckin' Stewart
1,622
12
38
#4
What's it matter how fast a cpu is, so long as it pumps out awesome graphics for me. :confused:
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
165
157
#5
Fire_ze_Missles said:
What's it matter how fast a cpu is, so long as it pumps out awesome graphics for me. :confused:
It has to calculate physics, AI, and all other non-graphically oriented things.

Provided, yes, it's a console. So what would in essence be ~1500MHz P4 equivalent performance could easily be worth more compared to a PC. But like I said, the Dreamcast's CPU was 1/3 as fast in 1998 - which is just fucking inexcusable.

I used to get excited over new console technology. I was amazed when I first saw a Dreamcast in action at Toys 'R Us, I just had to get one! I'm like, "Holy fucking shit, it looks so real! Sweet Jesus!" I then was excited over GameCube and got one after the Dreamcast was discontinued. Not that I care about my GC now, but consoles used to have all the latest cutting edge shit, the kind of stuff a $3000 computer would have, or be faster than any PC to date (N64, Dreamcast)!

Now, I look at these and I want to force myself to vomit. All they really care about is money now, not quality software.

I mean, Sony's losing around $100 on every PS3 they'll sell! I mean, Nolan Bushnell started that Gillette mantra of "Give away the razors so you can sell the blades" with the Atari 2600. But not once did he ever say "Give away the razors so you get knee deep in debt and can't afford to sell the blades."

Sony intends to recoup on software - but if they ship 1 million consoles at launch, I think it will be very hard to recoup all that. Because not everyone will buy two games, in fact many buyer's don't. If they have a shitty launch lineup like they did for the PS2 it's all over.

On hardware, that's 100 million lost out the gate, with approximately at most 75% recouperation. And if they really only have one "killer app" at launch like the Saturn did in Japan, you can expect it to sell through and recouperate 50%. Because if the rest of the titles are shit nobody will care. That's why Virtua Fighter sold at nearly a 1:1 ratio with the Saturn at launch - and if Sony pulls that they're gonna lose 50 million.