DICE 2005: Epic on Xbox 2, PS3

[NEXT BOX]

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/584/584509p1.html?fromint=1

DICE 2005: Epic on Xbox 2
More powerful than a PC?
By Hilary Goldstein
February 1, 2005 - During a panel discussion on next generation power, Epic
Games' President, Mark Rein, revealed some interesting tidbits about
next-generation consoles. First, Rein revealed Epic was working on two
next-gen games for Xbox 2 and/or PS3. Rein says that Unreal-level graphics
that eat up 5% of a PC's processing power can chomp a massive 80% out of the
current generation of consoles. However, having worked on these two
unannounced titles, Rein noted the next-gen machines actually surpassed the
power of a current PC.



Though no one can speak specifically on either PS3 or Xbox 2, numerous
sources have told IGN that Microsoft and Sony are set to deliver consoles
worthy of the title "Next Generation."

Look for an announcement of one of Epic's two next-gen games on Wednesday.


(ATI is providing the critical graphics component for Xbox2 and Nvidia the
graphics component for PS3)

 

[ragamuffin]

Same thing was said about the PS2 before it was released, bla bla bla...

 

[riku]

current generation of consoles. However, having worked on these two
unannounced titles, Rein noted the next-gen machines actually surpassed the
power of a current PC.

LOL! As if that is any news. Hasn't that been the case with ALL new
consoles, especially non-available ones? Playstation had Battle Arena
Toshinden and Ridge Racer that a PC of that time could not have
handled.

But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially
in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.

 

[Mike Kay]

LOL! As if that is any news. Hasn't that been the case with ALL new
consoles, especially non-available ones? Playstation had Battle Arena
Toshinden and Ridge Racer that a PC of that time could not have
handled.

But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially
in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.

the playstation was the last console to do this, the N64, DC, ps2 & xbox
were at best on a par with top spec PC's on release, but in all honesty,
probably not even that.

thats not to say some of the games are not better o nthe console than
their pc counterparts however.

 

[Zomoniac]

the playstation was the last console to do this, the N64, DC, ps2 & xbox
were at best on a par with top spec PC's on release, but in all honesty,
probably not even that.

I would like to challenge that a six year old PC could not have pulled off
Soul Calibur or DOA2. Not quite sure how one would prove or disprove though.

Zo

 

[Mils Michael]

But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially

in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.

Whew, hopefully a 1000? PC can surpass a 200? console.

-Moa Dragon

 

[DalienX]

Zomoniac wrote:

I would like to challenge that a six year old PC could not have
pulled off Soul Calibur or DOA2. Not quite sure how one would prove
or disprove though.

Zo

And neither would a 6 year old console.

 

[Andrew]

Whew, hopefully a 1000? PC can surpass a 200? console.

You can put together a gaming PC for less than $1000 and a console is
a lot more than $200 when released.

 

[Mils Michael]

You can put together a gaming PC for less than $1000 and a console is

a lot more than $200 when released.

But then you don't get to play console games anyway,
which is pity when you take a look at the current PC game
market

-Moa Dragon

 

[Chareth Cutestory]

NEXT BOX aka Cygfuck wrote:

<snip>

Die already.

 

[Joe62]

But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially
in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.

Maybe yes, maybe not (just because it was true on previous
generations, doesn't necessarily make it true now). Console developers
are getting much more sophisticated about designing boxes optimized
for the things that games need to do. With parallel processing, for
example, it won't be as simple as clock-speed + RAM + GPU vs.
equivalent PC stats.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe yes, maybe not (just because it was true on previous
generations, doesn't necessarily make it true now). Console developers
are getting much more sophisticated about designing boxes optimized
for the things that games need to do. With parallel processing, for
example, it won't be as simple as clock-speed + RAM + GPU vs.
equivalent PC stats.

What, you think they'll make consoles upgradable? I don't see how else they
can keep up with PC's that will be common in two years...

 

[riku]

Whew, hopefully a 1000? PC can surpass a 200? console.

That's a completely different discussion, because you can't compare
the hardware prices of PCs and consoles directly due to e.g.:

- different marketing model: console hardware is sold for little
profit or even at loss, the money is recouped with console game sales.
That is why console games generally cost more than PC games. Here
where I live, console games usually cost around $10-20 more than the
PC version of the same game. License fees etc., you know.

- PC can do more than a console, and has a much more modular design
(you can change your video card, sound card, PC has much more
connectors and ports than consoles etc.) and usually also has much
more hardware inside, like big hard drives, much more memory etc.. A
tighter, more integrated and more limited console design is much
cheaper to manufacture. But then, you can't install a new faster video
card inside your PS2 or XBox due to its integrated HW design, can you?

and probably many other factors.

 

[DalienX]

Zomoniac wrote:

..

I would like to challenge that a six year old PC could not have
pulled off Soul Calibur or DOA2. Not quite sure how one would prove
or disprove though.

Zo

Its easy to disprove that statement, half life came out in 1998, (7
years ago) and i had no trouble running that on pc.

 

[riku]

But then you don't get to play console games anyway,
which is pity when you take a look at the current PC game
market

The opposite is also true, with a console you can't play great PC
games like Rome: Total War or IL-2: Forgotten Battles. If anything, I
have very hard time finding much interesting to play on consoles. Too
much just instant-gratification games that get old very fast, for
example Burnout 3, which is crap.

 

[riku]

Maybe yes, maybe not (just because it was true on previous
generations, doesn't necessarily make it true now). Console developers

I would take that bet. XBox2 hype is nothing more than the PS2 hype.
How many PS2s did Saddam own to control his SCUD-missiles, again? Or
did you know PS2 is the first console where the game characters can
have true EMOTIONS and show life-like sea waves, due to its
ground-breaking "Emotional Engine" which even cries for you?

Console manufacturers are good at coming up with crap like that. ;-)
Who are they trying to fool? (consumers, or course).

are getting much more sophisticated about designing boxes optimized
for the things that games need to do. With parallel processing, for
example, it won't be as simple as clock-speed + RAM + GPU vs.
equivalent PC stats.

As if parallel processing won't happen on PCs too. What's this talk
about "SLI" in forthcoming PC video cards, or the increased multi-CPU
support in newer Windows versions?

Likewise, consoles have been touting this "parallel processing" ever
since Sega Saturn, yet it didn't make them superior. If anything,
newer consoles like PS2 seemed to move back from lots of parallel
processing to one or few big powerful units trying to handle
everything, be it processing graphics, audio, networking etc.

 

[Wblane]

Duh, they tried parallel processing w/PC's. Remember the Pentium Pro
dual-processor boards? How about the dual Pentium II boards? They were
expensive and as soon as Gigahertz processors came out completely obsolete.
Parallel processing has more overhead than a single processor because of things
like cache coherency, shared memory/peripheral access etc. You don't get NEARLY
twice the performance from a dual-processor setup because of the above issues
and more.

If you don't think vid-card manutfacturers like ATI and Nvidia optimize their
drivers to the Nth degree you're on crack.

Maybe yes, maybe not (just because it was true on previous
generations, doesn't necessarily make it true now). Console developers
are getting much more sophisticated about designing boxes optimized
for the things that games need to do. With parallel processing, for
example, it won't be as simple as clock-speed + RAM + GPU vs.
equivalent PC stats.

-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)