May 16th, 3pm PST: PS3 Launches. May 16th, 6pm PST: Xbox2 Launches

[asleepathewheel]

Count me as one who will have either the 360 or PS3 and Revolution. Probably the PS3 based on what has been shown so far, though we shall see.Blu-ray looks fantastic, the 360 uses as a media center etc. detract from the machine for me- I want a game console, not a kitchen sink.

And the revolution backwards compatible with entire Nintendo library? Well, frankly I would rather play a lot of 8 and 16 bit games than a lot of the games released these a days.

[Asher]

The Next Generation (each item to scale):

[Asher]

Had a nice technical discussion over at CG that some of you may find interesting: http://www.counterglow.com/forum/sho...threadid=28665

Hmm. How does 256 CPU and 256 DDR3 GPU RAM stack up against the arrangements on Xbox 360?

Almost identical. Xbox has 512MB DDR3 total, so developers have more freedom in partitioning the memory. The CPU RAM on the PS3 is RAMBUS, 25GB/s. Slightly higher bandwidth (vs. 22.4GB/s on Xbox for all 512), but with substantially higher latency. But cheaper!

The main differentiation point is the 10MB of 256GB/s embedded DRAM on the Xbox 360's GPU. Something like 40% of all memory writes on the GPU is on the current framebuffer only (drawing the actual picture). The Xbox 360 has the 256GB/s eDRAM on the chip, so it's quicker and doesn't saturate the main GPU bus bandwidth...freeing it up for other things.

In effect, Xbox 360 gets free anti-aliasing thanks to the eDRAM, and it'll be costly on the PS3.

Think I've got it. The graphics frame buffer on the Xbox 360 is built into the graphics chip. It's on separate chips on the PS3.

BUT... is a 10MB frame buffer enough on high resolution screens? Can it double buffer on 1200 X 1080 24 bit screens (bearing in mind it will be using 32 bits per pixel to avoid "odd" addressing?). Just... but forget widescreen, too many pixels to fit into 10Mb.

If so, it's possible Xbox could be the slower at max res?

1080p is 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels x 32-bits = 66355200 bits = 8294400 bytes = 8.1MB per frame at 1080p resolution (the max resolution). The rest of the framebuffer is basically used by the z-buffer.

Few pointers though:
1) You only need one framebuffer in the EDRAM, you only draw to one. Doublebuffering means you draw on the one "in the background" and draw it to the screen when it's done only. Singlebuffering means you draw directly to the picture on the screen (which looks like ass).
2) They use 32-bit per pixel not only to avoid odd addressing, the "odd" 8-bits is used as an alpha (transparancy) channel.

Also, as for getting AA for nothing, I can't help but think NVidia and Sony are going to build a heap of "free" processes in.

Well, if they don't, the Xbox will stuff them on paper.

They may claim things are "free", but everything takes memory bandwidth. If they're not going to use embedded memory for the task, it's coming at the cost of something else...and not free.

My point exactly! Unless Microsoft use non-square pixels or some other work around, it won't double buffer on top resolution settings, will it?

Of course it will, the 2nd buffer exists in the main memory pool instead of the EDRAM. This is in contrast to the PS3, where both buffers exist in the main memory pool.

The PS2 even had a small (2MB) eDRAM @ 48GB/s for the main framebuffer.

I guess Sony had to cut some corners somewhere,so the EDRAM had to go.

Yuk! So Mr GPU either has to copy memory continuously, or strobe different types of memory in the hope that the CPU has its feet up in the air at that precise moment in time.

On paper, PS3 will rock at ultra res, and Xbox 360 will not. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if that turns out to be true.

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. Higher reses require much more bandwidth, and the PS3 will have much less effective bandwidth since they don't have the eDRAM to draw the framebuffer on. Something like 40% of the memory bus activity will be saturated with constant calculations/streams of vectors that are avoided on the Xbox 360. It takes WAY more bandwidth for the GPU to draw the image, than it is to transfer the image once it's drawn.

Look at it this way: Is it faster to Xerox an image than it is to draw it by hand each time?

The PS3 is constantly drawing the image on a 22.4GB/s bus.

The Xbox2 draws this image on a 256GB/s bus, then sends a copy of the final product on the 22.4GB/s bus later.

8.1MB is compressed by a factor of 2-4 usually (ATI's lossless framebuffer compression), so you're effectively sending 2-4MB of data 60 times a second = 120-240MB/s of 22.4GB/s...and this is worst-case 1080p high-res...in standard 720p, it'll be much lower.

By comparison, the PS3 will easily use ~10GB/s of that 22.4GB/s to draw the image constantly.

This gives the Xbox2 over 22GB/s for data streaming (such as textures), and PS3 about 12GB/s for the same at high resses.

Yeah, but it's a constant bandwidth hit, isn't it? It means the Xbox 360 memory bus is slower again, because it continually has to transfer.

Both designs constantly have to transfer. The Xbox 360 transfers a compressed final image only, the PS3 every single detail. It takes much, much more bandwidth to draw the screen than it does send the final image.

It's like 400MB/s at 1080p to send a compressed final image compared to 10000MB/s.

It's not going to help CPU computation of the vector data to feed into the next frame generation, is it? Both machines have to feed the graphics chip with data from the CPU, but the Xbox has to wait for the finished frame to be buffered as well.

Both GPUs create the vertices now, as well as manipulate. That's a VS 3.0 feature. They don't get streamed from the CPU anymore.

And in any case, it makes no difference. The Xbox 360 has access to the exact same memory bus to main RAM as the PS3, but it has the additional option of 10MB of ultrafast embedded RAM to use as they wish. If they wanted to, they could draw both framebuffers in the main RAM and use the EDRAM for some constantly-used textures or whatever.

If anything, the PS3 is again at a disadvantage here, if only because the PS3 CPU only can access its 256MB of RDRAM, and can't touch anything in the GPU's RAM pool. This may be an issue when doing per-polygon collision detection (which is fairly standard today) on vertices created by the GPU. Since the X360 has a fully unified 512MB pool, both the CPU and GPU have access to everything.

[Asher]

Apparently all of the Xbox 360 demos we've seen were actually running on alpha kits at 1/3 of the final system's power.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/615/615667p1.html

The Alpha Unit is just a dual PowerMac G5 2.5GHz w/ Radeon X850:

[Nostromo]

So we'll have a better idea of what this bad boy can do in couple of months?

[Asher]

Yeah, July is when the final kits ship.

Does anyone else find it amusing when Microsoft is the one being honest in competition?

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/615/615893p1.html

Peter Moore: The games we showed were working off alpha test kits using a PC graphics ship, not the actual graphics chip from our system. The games are running at about 30% of their actual capability. Our dev kits are still only in the alpha stage, and we have not delivered beta kits yet. The final kits will ship to developers in July.

We had to show real stuff because we're at that point where we're really close. If we had shown conceptual movies like Sony did then people would really be wondering where we're coming from. Since we're this close to launch, we had to use real kits and real gameplay.

(Peter Moore is a Microsoft VP)

Q: Will the design of the Xbox 360 enable Microsoft to garner better sales because of the custom chip and architecture than with the previous Xbox?

Steve Ballmer: The cost of Xbox 360 -- per unit sold -- will be better. We know so much more about everything -- the price, design, profit -- this time our approach is much different in every way imaginable. We made the design to generate a better price point this time around. We paid a premium price for the first one, but the cost reduction in Xbox 1 was still good. This time around the numbers are different. You probably know this, but we went to 512 MB recently. We factored that in to the cost. We went to wireless controllers and figured that cost in; it's the costs and how they affect everything that we know so much better.

Peter Moore: The difference is that the first time around we had 15 months to prepare, versus three-plus years to go to marketwith the Xbox 360. We have a battle-hardened crew from the first time around that knows what it's doing.

(Steve Ballmer is the MS CEO)

Q: Why is Xbox Live such a big focus?

Steve: There are three things that we will focus on: HD, personalization, and Xbox Live. It's one of the three pillars of our strategy. It's what we've sunk a lot of time and resources into and because of it we're way ahead of the curve. Our Live functionality is easily going to lead the industry. And it's much more than just online deathmatches. That's just the beginning.

Q: Microsoft spent a lot of time illustrating how the Xbox 360 can be a media center in the living room. If that's the case, why is the Media Center appear so hidden in the interface?

Steve: If you want to experience it, you can have it. The Xbox 360 is plug-and-play. If you want more, the media center is there for you. It's not hidden, but there is no need for it to be front and center. We're trying to take things that are pretty hard, and we're trying to make them simpler. For the more experienced media user, the PC is the best place to bear the cost of DVD and heavy media. The Xbox 360 isn't as complex as a PC is in that way. The Media Center is there is you want it.

Q: What is your relationship with retailers this time around? How has it changed or improved?

Steve: It couldn't be a bigger difference. The retailers are coming to us with questions about how to sell HD and to consult them on this or that. They're enthusiastic, they have ideas. It's like an alternative universe. Three years ago, working with this one retailer -- and I won't mention names -- was like spitting into a gale force wind. Now they're engaged and thinking about how to approach the HD era, and their focus is on us.

Peter: Retailers look for one major thought leader to follow, that's us.

Q: We've recently checked EBWorld's prices on games and the Activision and EA games are selling at $59.99, $10 more than normal. Will Microsoft sell its games for that price too?

Steve: We don't set the price, the retailers do. We can recommend the price, but that seems to me like the retailers are speculating those prices. We're not setting them. Higher prices are better executed with incremental increases, like some of our premium content, rather than a wholesale jump.

Why did you decide to go with DVD instead of Blue Ray?

Steve: There is no HD DVD today. So that's an easy answer. It's not an option. Sony is taking a high risk strategy. Sony is doing 1080p, but nobody has TVs to support that. Why decide what medium your console is built on when the medium is set by the movie industry? What's the return? Nobody has those TVs now. We're coming out this fall. But we'll be agile, we'll be light on our feet. When there is news on that subject there will be news.

We've heard about your entrance plan, but where do you want to end up? What's your ultimate goal?

Steve: I could tell you I want to have the coolest design, the best HD tech specs, and all that, but that doesn't matter in the end. I want to be number one. I want to start with unit volume. If we don't sell a lot of units I won't be happy. I think we can outsell Sony. Our end sales depend on market growth and emerging markets.

How important is the strategy of going first?

Steve: Our original plan was to come out concurrently or close to Sony's launch. We knew we didn't want to come after. That wasn't an option. We had choices, and after some time, we thought we can wait or we can go in. We said "Damn the torpedoes! Let's do it." We agreed that we wouldn't come after Sony. But at some point in the cycle (of this generation of games) we said, let's set a timepoint and do it.

What is your feeling about the acquisition of Rare and what do you expect from them now and in the future of this new generation?

Steve: The Rare acquisition was a big acquisition. It ranked as one of the top 10 biggest acquisitions at Microsoft and we had to bring it to the board of supervisors for a vote. When we bought Rare we realized their approach would broaden our strategy. We've re-vectored our strategy since the acquisition, but this is part of a strategic bet, and Rare will do more on Xbox 360 than on Xbox. That's for sure. They will be Xbox 360 oriented.

They've worked out well. They're an important part of our start. And we want Rare to get it right, we don't want to rush them. I mean look at Halo when we first showed it. It looked awful. We gave Bungie time, and it worked out. I mean, look at sales of Halo and Halo 2. We want to give Rare the right time to make their games.

Peter: They're great guys, the Stamper brothers. The guys at Rare are geniuses. The two titles they're working on, PDZ and Kameo are deep, thorough, and sophisticated, they're not shallow games. And PDZ is a genre-breaking title.

Steve: How am I feeling about Rare? Our shareholders will be excited when these games are done. No doubt. I'm feeling pretty good right now about Rare. Really good.

[reds4ever]

Anyone seen a Euro release date?

I read an 'article' in a UK paper this morning saying that XBOX 360 was 10 times faster than a PC but the PS3 was 30 time faster than a PC!

What type or spec of PC was even specified!

[Asher]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Anyone seen a Euro release date?

I read an 'article' in a UK paper this morning saying that XBOX 360 was 10 times faster than a PC but the PS3 was 30 time faster than a PC!

What type or spec of PC was even specified!

Ugh, don't listen to the hype. Especially from people in marketing or journalists.

And Microsoft has said it'll do a global launch this year.

[Nostromo]

ExtremeTech's analysis of both consoles:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1816978,00.asp

So who's gonna win according to them? Here's their answer:

Throughout the evening, as I stood in lines and sat on busses and spoke with the journalists, photographers, financial analysts, and gamers around me, one thing become abundantly clear: It could go either way. Some were impressed by Microsoft's holistic vision, new Live features, and exclusive games, but were left a bit jaded and disappointed since they had seen it all before ("before" meaning "in the last several days"). Others thought the PlayStation 3 demonstrated clear technological superiority, and took Sony's word for granted that it would have all the same media hub capabilities of the Xbox 360, despite the fact that they never showed any of this in action. Everybody agreed that Square/Enix' support for the new Xbox is a very big deal.

As for me, I was a bit underwhelmed by Sony's demonstrations. All of the really super impressive stuff looked clearly prerendered to me—cinematics designed to show what the PS3 will be capable of, but not using the real game engine or real game assets. I got in several arguments during the evening with those who thought it was all real game footage, but I laughed it off. I don't know a single developer far enough along on PS3 games to produce in-game trailers like what we saw. Still, the specs are impressive, and it should easily be able to match or supercede the Xbox 360.

Microsoft seems much further along with software development. It showed more real-time demos and videos that were created in the game engine, but even more telling, it can demonstrate all the media features. The whole front-end is there, it's working, and it looks great.

When it comes to raw technical capabilities, I think the systems are more evenly matched than the marketing guys would have us believe. In the current generation, Microsoft came to market 20 months after the PS2, and could take advantage of further process technology advancements and price drops to deliver much more powerful hardware. This time, the PS3 will come to market only about 6 months after the Xbox 360, using the same process technologies and working within the same basic heat envelope. All "paper specs" aside, the sort of experience that each system will be able to put on screen in a real game will be very similar. At least close enough that the general public won't think of one as more powerful than the other.

What it's going to come down to is this: Which console has the best exclusive games and can bring them to market in a steady stream? Which company can manufacture these huge, complex chips in volume more efficiently and get 10 to 20 million systems on shelves first? Which system will provide the better services to handle movies, video, pictures, voice chat, and online services in the most easy and complete fashion?

Finally, there's the cost issue. Neither Sony nor Microsoft was willing to talk about exact prices or release dates. I can't imagine either one can go over the $399 price point, and $299 may be more likely. But what if one system is $299 and the other is $399, or even $349? A price difference could spell doom for the more expensive competitor.

The next-generation console battle lines have been drawn, but the big fight is just beginning. We'll be flooded with marketing hype, fawning hyperbole, and genuinely exciting new game info for the next year or two as Sony and Microsoft try to lock up not just our gaming lives, but our entire digital entertainment ecosystem.

[Nostromo]

The ExtremeTech interview with Todd Holmdahl:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1817031,00.asp

Get this, the 360 supports VGA. So even if you don't own a high def TV, you'll be able too hook it up on your computer screen.

[Asher]

Very spot-on IMO.

The Sony marketing right now of the PS3's "power" smells of Apple's marketing, and it drives me up the wall.

[DanS]

Steve: There is no HD DVD today. So that's an easy answer. It's not an option. Sony is taking a high risk strategy. Sony is doing 1080p, but nobody has TVs to support that. Why decide what medium your console is built on when the medium is set by the movie industry? What's the return? Nobody has those TVs now. We're coming out this fall. But we'll be agile, we'll be light on our feet. When there is news on that subject there will be news.

This is a very reasonable approach. That's basically what I said above. Millions of HDTVs support 720p60 fully. None support 1080p60 fully (only the highest of high end video gear does).

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Asher
Very spot-on IMO.

The Sony marketing right now of the PS3's "power" smells of Apple's marketing, and it drives me up the wall.

Unfortunately, the media (stupid journalists!) and hence the public has swallowed Sony's marketing pitch hook, line and sinker. For that reason, I think Sony won the first round.

[Asher]

This is a very reasonable approach. That's basically what I said above. Millions of HDTVs support 720p60 fully. None support 1080p60 fully (only the highest of high end video gear does).

From the developers who were interviewed at E3, none plan to support 1080p. It'll be like 1080i for Xbox...one or two games will actually use it.

nostromo: I think the perspectives will change. From current accounts, Xbox 360 is easier to program for than PS3 so far. They also got devkits and APIs and better developer tools in developer's hands sooner.

Once the games actually launch, I'm certain the Xbox 360 games will be graphically more impressive for most of the console lifecycle. By the time the 2nd generation games come out (which are developed for the most part with final specs/devkits), the PS3 will be still in the start of its 1st gen. That alone is a huge advantage -- devs will be more familiar with the Xbox 360 innards than PS3, sooner.

[Nostromo]

Some choice morsels from the ExtremeTech interview:

With the Xbox 360 you'll be able to connect to composite or component out of the box. There will be other things that we support like VGA. We'll also support some of the SCART type adaptors in Europe. It will support S-video, but not out of the box.

It doesn't support DVI or HDMI, not now at least.

About DVD playback:

We can output 720p or 1080i, whatever content you have.

It doesn't upscale. For example, it can't upscale a 480p movie in 720p.

About 1080p:

It does not support 1080p. It supports all of the TV sets that are out on the market right now. All the sets that people are using to play games right now.

About Wi-Fi:

Ethernet is built-in, WiFi can be added on. It was designed so that it's very seamless not only from a physical standpoint of snapping in and being flush with the box, but from an electrical standpoint where you plug it in and it recognizes the WiFi. It'll be a seamless thing.

It supports a, b and g

How about the noise?

It will be less noisy than the Xbox 1 under similar situations, just to use it as a reference. We also have a lot more flexibility in terms of the thermal algorithms we're using. When you're using DVD playback, you have the ability to turn off two of the CPU cores, for example. Then you're operating under a lot less power, you can turn the fans down and spin at a much lower speed.