Print

[FrIeD-GoAt]

who gives a crap if they use HD-DVD or not? high definition in games doesnt increase the size of them at all, and i doubt developers are going to be using 7 gigs for a game at this time in present, besides the lasy ones who dont bother to compress anything.

[dsl1]

QUOTE(FrIeD-GoAt @ Mar 12 2005, 07:00 AM)

who gives a crap if they use HD-DVD or not? high definition in games doesnt increase the size of them at all.

[m_hael]

QUOTE(FrIeD-GoAt @ Mar 12 2005, 08:13 AM)

im sorry, i didnt realise changing a resolution increases game size.

[mikeandbandit]

QUOTE(enderandrew @ Mar 13 2005, 11:48 PM)

M$ is ushering in a HD era, save for playing HD movies.  Why would anyone want to do that?

[enderandrew]

There are already movies on the market for Blu-Ray players, and Blu-Ray players on the market.  Yet the WM9 format has been on the market for years, and I know of only one movie that supports it.

A whopping one movie.

That's not exactly ushering in an era.

[miggidy]

The only specs Sony has announced about the PS3 is a cell cpu and an Nvidia gpu....

[nitussi]

Seven to eight GIGs is more than enough to make a game. Judging by the power of the processor, if developers needed to put more data on the disk, they could compress it..prob 3:1 or maybe 20:1.

[KingViper]

"Wow, I bet the xbox2 will be really fast...and stuff"

"Hey, they should use HD Discs"

"They should put 512mb ram in it..that would be neat-o"

Ok, please..stop posting the same stuff in here...we've all heard this crap already.

Also, people posting saying that the PowerPC cores are going to be seperate CPUs are ridiculous.  AMD and Intel have dual core processors that will be released very soon, Intel in the first half of 05..and AMD in the second half.  So, saying that this is going to be impossible to have 3 cores on one cpu..is just insane.  But what is it you say...they dont have tri-core CPU's yet?  Well, have we seen ATI's next generation g-card yet?  Nope, and we haven't seen tri-core CPU's yet..and still..they are claimed to be on the next xbox.  They will be..putting three seperate CPU's in a computer is a waste of money and space.  Each CPU will have to connect to the northbridge seperatly, and have its own memory.  If each core is on one die..they link them together directly and have 1 bank of memory...thats why AMD's dual core processors will be compatible with most current S939 motherboards.

In addition, you can't directly compare the processes of each core and decide which one is faster.  In a standard environment..if an Athlon XP 3200+ can do X number of processes in a second compared to the three cores doing Y number of processes, you must take into consideration that since there are 3 cores..they can each be doing different things. 33% of the core could be processing physics, 33% could be decompressing audio, and the other 33% could be doing something else.  On a single core processor (besides intels hyperthreading), the core can only work on 1 thing.

Another thing I noticed is that somebody posted saying that a 32bit processor has to work twice as hard as a 64bit processor to do the same thing.  I think that person should stop posting.

Anyway, the system is going to be "bada$$" and there is no way of knowing whats gonna be in it.  The dev systems for the first generation xbox had 128mb of ram..so if dev systems for the xbox 2 have 256...who can say that thats whats going to be in the final thing?  Maybe it will only be 128.  (I'm not saying thats the case)  Just realize that anything can be changed at anytime.

ggkthxbai~

[mikeandbandit]

QUOTE(Tatersaladx @ Mar 15 2005, 08:09 PM)

First off, I think Xbox 2 sould use 512MB of PC 1066 of Rambus, it may be exspensive as hell but it owns DDR. AlsoI honestly dont like theIdea of POWER PC CPUs Im not an Apple guy, I think the CPU use in Xbox 2 shoudl be one  of the new Pentium 4 64 bits, It'll won the hell out of anything AMD will throw at it, and Apple products just suck.

[Moleman]

I would much prefer AMD to Intel if it comes to that, but Power PC based processors are definitely the way to go for X2.

[Wedding-shirt]

QUOTE

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Intel makes one 64-bit chip, and it's the Itanium which sucks.

The EMT 64 is a 32-bit processor that can handle some 64 bit operations. It is slower than the AMD processor in gaming, and runs slower when you install a 64 bit operating system since it's not really a 64-bit chip.

The entry level Intel chip is over $100 more expensive than the entry level AMD 64-bit chip, and yet runs slower. One reviewer also noted the Intel's run extremely hot out of the box as well.

But you don't know anything about the Dual cores yet. Who knows if Intel will outperform AMD in gaming when the industry goes to multiple cores?

[mikeandbandit]

QUOTE(Wedding-shirt @ Mar 16 2005, 08:08 PM)

But you don't know anything about the Dual cores yet. Who knows if Intel will outperform AMD in gaming when the industry goes to multiple cores?

[SpectralWolf]

Oh, IBM unveils its own dual-core processor code-named Antares...thus confirming rumors that it was working on the "PowerPC 970MP". Market share, notwithstanding, this would provide another alternative to Intel & AMD's solution.

http://www.firingsqu...p?searchid=7817

[Geni-Tech]

or u can use a usb web cam but its cool so now u can have ur face on a video game profile image ur face being in the halo 3 game ur in the suit or NFS seriose

[mikeandbandit]

QUOTE(SpectralWolf @ Mar 16 2005, 10:27 PM)

Oh, IBM unveils its own dual-core processor code-named Antares...thus confirming rumors that it was working on the "PowerPC 970MP". Market share, notwithstanding, this would provide another alternative to Intel & AMD's solution.