Viewing Thread:
"X-Boxes to to have a £150.00 price tag"

Okay, I just made that up...

(the PS2 train Simulator story threw me off for a bit :) )

But what if...

The X-Box were to be released before Christmas (say October) this year, with a price tag of 150.00 quid...

and to have a full compliment of games avalible at launch?

Would anyone here change their minds and pick up the box?

Would anyone take another look at the new machine?

Or would you stick with what you've got... keeping with the PS2 or waiting for the GC?

My knowledge of chips goes about as far as what RISC and CISC stand for.

All I know is that consoles, bar the XBox, use RISC chips, and the XBox is using a PC style chip which is CISC.

RISC are faster but, obviously, can't do as much stuff as CISC. It's obvious then that as consoles only need to play games, RISC is the way to go.

However, MS have gone down the road of using a CISC chip. The only reason I can think of for this is so it's easier to port games from the PC. They obviously want a huge number of games available, and don't seem to concerned about the quality, as there are plenty of shoddy PC games around.

Having said that, a large number of mediocre games didn't seem to hurt the PSX much....

Your Honour wrote:
it depends on how you
> program the chip to work. You could have 2 chips the same, but get
> them both to use different instruction set. (I think, I may be
> wrong, it's been a while since I did this at university.)

Lik I say, an Acorn Archie will never run as fast as a pc using a P4 1.7gig chip...

Although, RISC chips are inherantly faster...

Otherwise, what would be the point of having a limited set of instructions?

I didn't know they did. But maybe it's because
> they are reliable and have been tried and tested over many
> years?

Well.. when intel/motorola,etc... bring out their latest CISC chip sets, they use relativly new design techniques...

RISC chips have been around almost as long as cisc... its just that Intels CISC dominace has taken its tole...

Don't know, maybe they kept the bits they needed
> to for PS1 compatibility and then changed what they could for
> PS2?

I understand that they have been using emulation on chips for the past couple iof years to ensure PC legacy

Armitage Shanks wrote:

Its easier to get a RISC chip to run faster than a
> CISC... but the reduced instructoin set, does, inherantly hold its
> own problems...

It depends on how you program the chip to work. You could have 2 chips the same, but get them both to use different instruction set. (I think, I may be wrong, it's been a while since I did this at university.)

Why do you think other system manufactueres
> (Silicon Graphics, etc..) still use CISC?

I didn't know they did. But maybe it's because they are reliable and have been tried and tested over many years?


Doesnt than mean the PS2 chip is using
> 10 year old technology... and is infact really a CISC chip to keep
> PS1 compatibility?

Don't know, maybe they kept the bits they needed to for PS1 compatibility and then changed what they could for PS2?

My tech knowledge isn't amazingly high, and I don't pretend that it is so some of what I've said could well be wrong.

Your Honour wrote:
For games, a CISC chip is
> better than a RISC chip. For PC's a mixture of the two is used as
> the first chips were CISC, but people realised that RISC is
> better.

No there not... RISC chips are not better than CISC chips...

Its easier to get a RISC chip to run faster than a CISC... but the reduced instructoin set, does, inherantly hold its own problems...

Why do you think other system manufactueres (Silicon Graphics, etc..) still use CISC?

But they can't change PC's over to fully RISC chips as
> they have to be backwards compatible, otherwise the program gives
> the chip a command that it can't carry out.

Doesnt than mean the PS2 chip is using 10 year old technology... and is infact really a CISC chip to keep PS1 compatibility?

Thats not a very fair comaprison is it!

For games, a CISC chip is better than a RISC chip. For PC's a mixture of the two is used as the first chips were CISC, but people realised that RISC is better.

But they can't change PC's over to fully RISC chips as they have to be backwards compatible, otherwise the program gives the chip a command that it can't carry out.

Your Honour wrote:
I know that the XBox is using a PC style chip, which
> is based on technology 20+years old. CISC isn't it?

Although the PC does use a CISC chip... its not using 20 year old technology ... lol, thats funny man :)

I imagine the
> PS2 chip is RISC.

Wether its a RISC or a CISC chip doesnt matter as much as the design of the chip itself...

For example, an Acron Archimedes is never going to outperform a P4 1.7G ...

Turbo, true.

I know that the XBox is using a PC style chip, which is based on technology 20+years old. CISC isn't it?

I imagine the PS2 chip is RISC.

I think why MS went down the road of making their console like a PC is so that it will be easy to port titles across. From reading games magazines, it's obvious to me that the PC has more new games per month than consoles.

Perhaps MS wanted to use this to their advantage?

I don't know much about programming, but I'd imagine it wouldn't take much effort to port a PC title to the XBox.

YH:

I use Windows because I have to. This is a handed-down PC that came with Windows. I can't buy a Mac and Linux won't boot (yet).

Also, the Xbox is indeed more powerful than the PS2 but the fact is it's just not good at running games. Word 2000 will really fly on it but when it comes to 3D games it just can't cut the mustard. Architectually, it's just not designed to.

I was thinking about taking the innards out of an X-Box, and moving in there...

Slaveunit wrote:
>(Also have to wait until I live in a bigger house)

Any georgian stlye mansions in your area? ;)