The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I love the ps2 with its dvd, cool graphics, wicked games but it doesent stand a chance against my dell 733mhz with a geFORCE 64mb graphics card. What I am trying to say is that they are over exagerating the ps2 make it seem god like. The fact is that pc's will always be 1 step ahead.
Page:
gaming consoles are becoming more like pc's, an example of this is that the ps2 is going to have a hard drive, not with it, but as an accessory. The ps2 can, later on, hook up to the internet and download all types of game patches and mp3's, and h/m gaming consoles are going to come with a printer.
My point is that gaming consoles are becoming extinct and a new breed of entertainment systems are born.
My point is that gaming consoles are becoming extinct and a new breed of entertainment systems are born.
precisely, Morgan!
Now I'm no expert but I know that the only reason PC processor speeds are so high is because the architecture is from the dark ages!
I can still remember the days when my 50 Mhz Amiga 1200 was at least as fast as a PC of double the processor speed; basically due to a more efficient architecture.
So whilst I'm sure 1500 Mhz is a real feat of engineering, all it will really do is show up other bottlenecks in the architecture; bus speeds, etc.
Why not start with an efficient architecture from the beginning? I guess this is where consoles really shine; they're custom made to get the most efficiency from every component AND from the complete system.
RE-educating the public; hmm..maybe they'll lie about the processor speed, and call it "EPS" or something...(equivalent pentium speed). they never have to tell anyone what EPS means, and they'll have a cool new acronym to use, as in:
Specify NEW Pentium 12 EPS; the processor for men.
OK time to go back to my cell now.
Now I'm no expert but I know that the only reason PC processor speeds are so high is because the architecture is from the dark ages!
I can still remember the days when my 50 Mhz Amiga 1200 was at least as fast as a PC of double the processor speed; basically due to a more efficient architecture.
So whilst I'm sure 1500 Mhz is a real feat of engineering, all it will really do is show up other bottlenecks in the architecture; bus speeds, etc.
Why not start with an efficient architecture from the beginning? I guess this is where consoles really shine; they're custom made to get the most efficiency from every component AND from the complete system.
RE-educating the public; hmm..maybe they'll lie about the processor speed, and call it "EPS" or something...(equivalent pentium speed). they never have to tell anyone what EPS means, and they'll have a cool new acronym to use, as in:
Specify NEW Pentium 12 EPS; the processor for men.
OK time to go back to my cell now.
People.
With the exception of Grix, who seems to know a bit more about how these things work than most, this argument is flawed.
You *CANNOT* compare cross-platform purely on the basis of bits and MHz.
Please do some background reading.
If I am running a 550MHz Alpha system is that slower than a 733MHz Pentium ? Havn't got a clue. Sometimes. Depends what you are doing with it.
The point is any given architecture is a balenced design with components that are (in theory) supposed to work in harmony. There will be things a PC is 'better' at or 'faster' at (although how do you define this ?) there will be things a PS2 is better at.
Stop comparing cross platform on the basis of stats. It is a waste of everyones time.
PS - As a side note it is interesting how MHz seems to have been adopted by most as a measure of performance cross platform. This has come about primarily because of the 'intel mentality' out there but it may bite them yet.
When the next gen of processors are running at considerably slower clock speeds , but perhaps 64bit who is going to buy them ? For years people have been hoodwinked with 'MHz is the ultimate measure of performance'.
It will be interesting to see how they 're-educate' the public.....
With the exception of Grix, who seems to know a bit more about how these things work than most, this argument is flawed.
You *CANNOT* compare cross-platform purely on the basis of bits and MHz.
Please do some background reading.
If I am running a 550MHz Alpha system is that slower than a 733MHz Pentium ? Havn't got a clue. Sometimes. Depends what you are doing with it.
The point is any given architecture is a balenced design with components that are (in theory) supposed to work in harmony. There will be things a PC is 'better' at or 'faster' at (although how do you define this ?) there will be things a PS2 is better at.
Stop comparing cross platform on the basis of stats. It is a waste of everyones time.
PS - As a side note it is interesting how MHz seems to have been adopted by most as a measure of performance cross platform. This has come about primarily because of the 'intel mentality' out there but it may bite them yet.
When the next gen of processors are running at considerably slower clock speeds , but perhaps 64bit who is going to buy them ? For years people have been hoodwinked with 'MHz is the ultimate measure of performance'.
It will be interesting to see how they 're-educate' the public.....
I didn't read through the messages in this forum so somebody has probably said what I've just said.
Sorry if I've repeated what a several people have already said!
Sorry if I've repeated what a several people have already said!
BOT SAID:
>I love the ps2 with its dvd, cool graphics, wicked games >but it doesent stand a chance against my dell 733mhz >with a geFORCE 64mb graphics card. What I am trying to >say is that they are over exagerating the ps2 make it >seem god like. The fact is that pc's will always be 1 >step ahead.
The hugely expensive PS2 is probably cheaper than your PC's processor alone and you'd have to spend £1000 + for the rest of it.
What's more, as games are designed for the Average PC (not as powerful as yours) the games aren't really using much more power and there's no doubt that within are year, any PC is likely to become in efficient, slower and slightly awkward to use.
PC's are still great worth having but by the time you've loaded up windows, installed the game, loaded the game up, sorted out any bugs/problems, you could've probably been playing for 20+ mins on an easier to use consoles.
So... PC's will always superior to consoles in Power, What you can do with them, but not as games machines.
Do you see?
>I love the ps2 with its dvd, cool graphics, wicked games >but it doesent stand a chance against my dell 733mhz >with a geFORCE 64mb graphics card. What I am trying to >say is that they are over exagerating the ps2 make it >seem god like. The fact is that pc's will always be 1 >step ahead.
The hugely expensive PS2 is probably cheaper than your PC's processor alone and you'd have to spend £1000 + for the rest of it.
What's more, as games are designed for the Average PC (not as powerful as yours) the games aren't really using much more power and there's no doubt that within are year, any PC is likely to become in efficient, slower and slightly awkward to use.
PC's are still great worth having but by the time you've loaded up windows, installed the game, loaded the game up, sorted out any bugs/problems, you could've probably been playing for 20+ mins on an easier to use consoles.
So... PC's will always superior to consoles in Power, What you can do with them, but not as games machines.
Do you see?
Just a slight , temporary, change of subject have you heard of the new chip that intel has made? they are going to release it in about 5 years. They say that it is 100 times more powerful than anything we have today "a molacule processor" cool, so this means that they will be shovin these beauties in gaming systems in the future and make the ps2 look more like a nintendo.
von wrote:
> So you're telling me, that if you had 32 people filling buckets
> with water - which you had to fill a swimming pool with, and your
> competitor had 128 people filling their buckets - both working @
> the same time; there would be no differnce ?
Von, you are right (again and again) but pc's nowadays don't have floating point processors only mac's have them and they classify them super computers, but the ps2 has one!
The ps2 is made for gaming where the computer is made for almost everything, it may be more powerful but at the end you are going to most likely have more fun on a ps2.
> So you're telling me, that if you had 32 people filling buckets
> with water - which you had to fill a swimming pool with, and your
> competitor had 128 people filling their buckets - both working @
> the same time; there would be no differnce ?
Von, you are right (again and again) but pc's nowadays don't have floating point processors only mac's have them and they classify them super computers, but the ps2 has one!
The ps2 is made for gaming where the computer is made for almost everything, it may be more powerful but at the end you are going to most likely have more fun on a ps2.
Page: