# Anyone thought of Xbox 360 computer?



## AMDCam (Aug 16, 2005)

Hey, I've been thinking about this for weeks. You know, the Xbox 360 is WAY ahead of it's time with RAM and processor, and for $300 to outdo an FX-57, that beast of an overclocked P4 (7ghz), and any X2 processors while the competition sells this stuff for around $1000 (extreme series, FX-57, X2), how could someone not do this? If you don't know, it's got a tri-core 3.2ghz (9.6ghz altogether) 64-bit processor. We're just cracking the dual-core shell as PC users. Also, we've got high-latency PC2 RAM that's mostly only compatible with Intel processors right now, but the 360 has GDDR3, Graphics-grade RAM. Now for some reason the graphics card sucks, 500mtriangles a second and and 10mb Vram? BUT WHO CARES, find a custom-built motherboard that supports that RAM and processor, and slap in 2 SLI 7800 GTX's, you won't find a computer that'll compare to you for a long time.

If you guys have any practical ideas or have thought of this too, please tell me what the drawbacks or pros could be. I want to do this myself, it's just gonna be hard to somehow make it compatible with a motherboard.


----------



## grazzhoppa (Aug 16, 2005)

The 360 uses "dumb" cpu's that are cheaper to produce than "intelligent" cpu's like Athlons or Pentiums.  Athlons and Pentiums execute instructions out of order, and they use prediction algorithms and logic to speed things up.  The 360's cpus execute instructions as they come which slows things down because the cpu has to execute an arbitary # of instructions before it gets to the instruction that is really important.

John Carmack (smarty programmer behind id software) said the 360's cpu's do half as much work per cycle as modern cpu's like the pentium 4 or athlon64's.  Remember that megahertz are just how many cycles the cpu can go through in a second.  How the cpu handles data in 1 cycle contributes a lot to how "fast" it performs.  So you could think of it in the way that the 360's 3.2ghz cpus would perform like 1.6ghz cpus.

It also doesn't have as much ram as you think it does.  If you somehow put some hog of an OS like WinXP or MacOSX on it, you'll have wasted 100+ MB of ram.  The 360 wasn't designed to have a lot of overhead for things like a heavy operating system.  It's super fast ram is going to be used to stream textures and other data off of the slow harddrive/dvd as you play games.  The 10MB vram is just the render buffer.  The graphics card will use the system ram for texture memory, so it doesn't need a lot of "on board" memory - just enough for a high definition picture.  If you were to install Linux or something and try to play a game, you'd get a huge slowdown because PC games aren't optimized to stream data from the harddrive/optical drive constantly.  In fact, PC games are designed to make as few disk hits as possible - when you load a level, the important stuff is shoved into the system and video ram.

And I haven't heard of anybody or company that makes custom motherboards, you'll have to make due with what Microsoft gives you.


----------



## AMDCam (Aug 16, 2005)

Well dang, thanks for telling me. But I don't mean it has a lot of RAM, I mean it's fast. 512mb isn't too much, but GDDR3 is what I'm getting at. I had no idea that processors were manufactured as 'dumb', so thanks for that dude, it makes sense why it's so cheap now.


----------



## gazza (Aug 21, 2005)

Is anybody going to get one, I have an xbox and I love it.  I am deffinately going to get the xbox360.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 21, 2005)

first of all the frequency doesnt add up. it's still 3.2Ghz, not 9.6Ghz all together. Having said that I wonder why you think it's faster than a P4 or Athlon?
It's a totally different architecture. So whatever you're suggesting is totally impossible. 
I think you should do some research on architectures and the efficiency of OSes on consoles. Because there isn't a heavy OS like windows, everything is way more efficient therefor the GPU will be more than sufficient.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Aug 22, 2005)

The performance of the system using 512 mb of GDDR would be laughable.


----------



## Tenacious (Aug 23, 2005)

Ill wait until they are at the £100 mark in a few years


----------



## AMDCam (Aug 23, 2005)

WOW, sorry about that guys. I just used logic, which was reading the "3.2ghz PER CORE" on the xbox website, and 3.2x3=9.6. No need to make fun of me, I mean I'm just saying, GDDR3 RAM and a "3.2ghz" tri-core processor logically says it's fast if you haven't done research on the barely-known processor's architecture.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 23, 2005)

Actually logic is:
1 car drives 100Km/h
2 cars both drive 100Km/h, they both keep their speed. They can move twice as much cargo together though.

Same counts for CPU's they can do twice as much work. Though it has to be chopped in pieces(multithreading). Both cars together can't carry a twice as large piece of cargo since it would fall off. Additionally you're limited by the road (system bus and some other things) both cars go over the same road so they'll be in eachothers way which slows them down slightly.

I hope that example gives you an idea of how it works, practically an 80% performance increase from a second core is pretty decent.


----------



## AMDCam (Aug 24, 2005)

Okay, that really doesn't prove either of our points, but okay. And I still stick with my logic. Not sure why you're so upset about this thread but whatever I did to offend you, I really wasn't insulting anyone's intelligence.


----------



## spectre440 (Aug 24, 2005)

nice traffic analogy, lol


----------



## wazzledoozle (Aug 24, 2005)

Actually Dan does prove his point. You have to be quite un-informed to think that the processor speed adds up. Ive seen people do it on IGN, and its pretty sad.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 24, 2005)

I'm not upset. Just trying to explain how processors work together.


----------



## AMDCam (Aug 24, 2005)

Okay, well let me re-state my statement instead of arguing with you "informed" people. A tri-core 3.2ghz processor (3.2ghz per core, everyone knows it's not 9.6ghz so just assume) and GDDR3 RAM. Now add some AMD architecture and AI in the processor, and an extra 512mb of RAM and you got yourself the fastest basic computer on the market.


----------



## gazza (Aug 24, 2005)

How much would the hardware in the x360 cost, if you put into a PC?


----------



## wazzledoozle (Aug 25, 2005)

gazza said:
			
		

> How much would the hardware in the x360 cost, if you put into a PC?


Depends. If it truly does have what they say right now-
R520 $450
3 powerpc based processors $450
512 mb gddr3 and 10 mb of fast ram embedded onto the R520's die $100
40 gb hard drive $50
water cooling system $100
case $50
PSU $50
motherboard $250?? (Multi-socket motherboards are about that much?)


I would estimate 1500 $USD


And AMDCam, you cant add ram to a console.


----------



## gazza (Aug 25, 2005)

Bill Gates is going to make a big loss on the consoles for a while, I know they only make their money up if games do well, the likes of Halo and Project Gotham racing, make the companies more then most blockbuster films do in the summer.  What is the price of the console in America, over here its £280.00.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 25, 2005)

The hardware is pretty cheap, that's true yes. Though it won't run windows. 
Though it's not "IBM architecture", it's called powerpc. So instead of making it a PC, it would be easier to make it a mac. Yes it would probably kick some mac ass and is a lot cheaper.

You simply can't "add some AMD architecture". In fact, you can't do it at all.
The only option would be a macintosh. And I think that will happen eventually.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Aug 25, 2005)

gazza said:
			
		

> Bill Gates is going to make a big loss on the consoles for a while, I know they only make their money up if games do well, the likes of Halo and Project Gotham racing, make the companies more then most blockbuster films do in the summer.  What is the price of the console in America, over here its £280.00.


its 299.99 her for the version with wireless controller and console, 399.99 for console, wireless controller, headset, and 40 gb hard drive (or was it 20?)


----------



## AMDCam (Aug 26, 2005)

Well wazzledoozle, I was saying make a new custom computer, not the xbox 360. So 1gb of GDDR3 RAM, a 3-core processor at 3.2ghz each, and put 2 R520's in a crossfire board CUSTOM BUILT (yes, yes, I know there is no custom board yet, but you can dream) for only around $300 for all the core parts (processor, RAM, maybe even modified 360 mobo). And yeah, it may be a dumb processor but I was just saying, with that capability without thinking of architecture and just looking at pure power, it looks like a good deal.

Plus Bill Gates really did make a bad choice, but it was hardwares in my opinion. Why a DVD drive? Last I heard, the 360 still uses DVD's, I haven't heard of it using HD-DVD's (Microsoft's with HD, Sony's with Blu-ray), and I do not want another Playstation with multi-disc games. I hated that, and we have the technology to not do that so Microsoft is stupid in that way if they end up putting DVD's in their new system.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Aug 26, 2005)

AMDCam said:
			
		

> Well wazzledoozle, I was saying make a new custom computer, not the xbox 360. So 1gb of GDDR3 RAM, a 3-core processor at 3.2ghz each, and put 2 R520's in a crossfire board CUSTOM BUILT (yes, yes, I know there is no custom board yet, but you can dream) for only around $300 for all the core parts (processor, RAM, maybe even modified 360 mobo). And yeah, it may be a dumb processor but I was just saying, with that capability without thinking of architecture and just looking at pure power, it looks like a good deal.
> 
> Plus Bill Gates really did make a bad choice, but it was hardwares in my opinion. Why a DVD drive? Last I heard, the 360 still uses DVD's, I haven't heard of it using HD-DVD's (Microsoft's with HD, Sony's with Blu-ray), and I do not want another Playstation with multi-disc games. I hated that, and we have the technology to not do that so Microsoft is stupid in that way if they end up putting DVD's in their new system.


I used street prices for a custom computer. One can only estimate the cost of the processors. And it has 3 processors, not a triple core cpu. Forgot to add motherboard/psu/case but ill add that now.


----------



## Cobalt49 (Sep 4, 2005)

I think you can find stripped down versions of OSs that are less  hardware hogging so they might be an option. I would like to have an OS on my 360 (when I get it) but only so I can use firefox etc. Its a custom built gaming machine so what would be the point of turning it into a PC just to play games on it? Of course there are some games that you can't play on consoles but most of those games would be horrible to play with a game pad anyway.


----------



## Anarion (Sep 4, 2005)

so cool .grazzhoppa was totaly superb & amdcam i got ur idea well man...
& why u guys attackin with "invidious negative digression" he just say it's work alot better than 3.2...btw i don't care what  John Carmack says or anybody i stick with amdcam idea's although denounce in any way.... & always remember maybe somebody don't know as much as u do but for sure magnanimity always alongside with erudition.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Sep 4, 2005)

This isnt just off the shelf hardware like the original xbox was. You cant just port an OS to it, it has a specialized architecture. At best we might see a basic linux distro from some crazy programmer, but the modding scene wont be nearly as large because it has propriety hardware.


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 5, 2005)

Thanks anarion, you see what I was tryin to say. Does anyone know of an "Xbox" or PS2-type OS I can put on my computer? I'd LOVE to see how it does completely focussed on a game, like Doom 3. If there is such a thing then people with years old systems can still play the newest games for a little while. Thanks again anarion.


----------



## Anarion (Sep 5, 2005)

AMDCam said:
			
		

> Thanks anarion, you see what I was tryin to say. Does anyone know of an "Xbox" or PS2-type OS I can put on my computer? I'd LOVE to see how it does completely focussed on a game, like Doom 3. If there is such a thing then people with years old systems can still play the newest games for a little while. Thanks again anarion.



 u r very welcom  i jus say wat was obvious    idunno about console os for pc (mission impossible). 

but u can use emu . 

also console bios have copyright & blah blah blah then it is not possible 

but for os in pc @ first there are no way "technicaly" (but not  in theory) which u can use console os in pc's there are alot alot alot alot probs....

btw if it was possible then u boot from console os in pc for sure u can't see any good(in performance).


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

*I have known about Xbox 360 since it was in the thinking stage*

ah the advantages of having your farther being a licensed partner with microsoft, let me well you i had the prototype at my house for a couple weeks and the prototype is only 1/3 of the real things power. it was kick ass. specs of real system are 3-3.2Ghz Processors able to process 2 threads each, an ATI R500 GPU 600Mhz Core. Compare the processing power to the current Xbox's 733Mhz single threaded Pentium 3 processor. in Raw speed it's over 3X as fast, So totaling over 12X the Xbox CPU Processing Power, And GPU is a around 2X as fast in Core Clocks i believe over the Nvidia in the Xbox. plus 20GB HD is 2.5X Xbox's HD. The PS3 will kick the Xbox 360's ass though with the Cell weighing in around 4Ghz or faster, the cell is about 10 times more powerful than modern day computer processors able to process 9 threads (no joke), RAMBUS XDR2 RAM at 8Ghz Memory Speed with micro-threading making it fetch 8 bytes of data at a time instead of the typical 32 bytes which quadruples can quadruple memory speed and is also more efficient and able to pump 100GBps to the cell processor. the downside of the PS3 so far it's estimated to be around $500 and won't be released until the holiday season (hanukah for me) next year. the Xbox 360 however can not become a computer like the PS2 can be. Because Microsoft would lose a lot of money if people didn't need PC's, unlike Sony that supported the little PS2 Linux Computer kit. The cell processor however could never become a PC's CPU because of the different technology, and the fact it doesn't have some instruction sets. But both Xbox 360 and PS3 will be HDTV 720p and 1080p enabled with Dolby 5.1 Surround and IBM processors (Xbox 360's are 3.2Ghz IBM PowerPC processors, and PS3 is the Cell)


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

also a gaming consoles OS could not be used on a PC because of the hardware, the necessary drivers to use the hardware, the proper processors are needed because the PC's CPU may not have the proper architecture, processing type, or instruction sets. and the proper game would have to be totally (i mean everything) redesigned in the coding of the program to suit the OS, why do you think there are different versions of games and programs for MAC, Windows and even Linux. The Xbox 360's OS is kind of similar to Windows media center.


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 6, 2005)

Well alright, thanks. But I was looking at specs, and according to some people it's 3 seperate processors in the Xbox 360, but what I'm taking it as from the Xbox's official website is a tri-core 3.2ghz processor at 3.2ghz per core. The clockspeed of the graphics card really doesn't matter, it's what makes it run and pipelines and stuff like that, but it seems pretty weak to me in the 360, but I doubt it'll be noticable with all that other good hardware. The PS3 I am about 95% sure about it being $300, because according to history and marketing, all successful systems in the past 3 or 4 generations have been $300 or less in the beginning, so unless sony has somehow gotten retarded then it'll be $300 to compete with the other systems. Plus it's a single-core 3.2ghz "cell" processor, that's what I hear. I'm talking about the PS3.


----------



## gerrynicol (Sep 6, 2005)

Does no one remember the phase where mfgs put megadrives into PC's!!.  I always wanted one of those.

I know it's a bit different nowadays but the technology was there all those years ago!!


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

i know it's an early version of the R520 which is going to have 16 pipelines in low end card 24 on the mid end and on the high end cards will be 32 so should be somewhere between there


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

the reason why the graphics card sucks is because TV doesn't go more than 30fps in 480i 720i and 1080i, but 60fps in 480p, 720p, and 1080p. All LCD monitors can't go more than 60fps due to the phase change the picture has to go through.


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

the xbox 360's processors wouldn't be compatible with any other mobo because the processor was custom made and was made by IBM. So it won't be socket 370, 478, 603, 604, 775, 939, and 940. when will you people learn? besides if it did work the bios would be able to use tri-cores due to the bios etc.


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

i mean wouldn't be able to use tri cores


----------



## Anarion (Sep 6, 2005)

Jewfromdahood said:
			
		

> ...................



there is a button called edit . & there are somtin called "in one post"

btw isit matter ??? no realy ?


----------



## wazzledoozle (Sep 6, 2005)

Jewfromdahood said:
			
		

> ah the advantages of having your farther being a licensed partner with microsoft, let me well you i had the prototype at my house for a couple weeks and the prototype is only 1/3 of the real things power. it was kick ass. specs of real system are 3-3.2Ghz Processors able to process 2 threads each, an ATI R500 GPU 600Mhz Core. Compare the processing power to the current Xbox's 733Mhz single threaded Pentium 3 processor. in Raw speed it's over 3X as fast, So totaling over 12X the Xbox CPU Processing Power, And GPU is a around 2X as fast in Core Clocks i believe over the Nvidia in the Xbox. plus 20GB HD is 2.5X Xbox's HD. The PS3 will kick the Xbox 360's ass though with the Cell weighing in around 4Ghz or faster, the cell is about 10 times more powerful than modern day computer processors able to process 9 threads (no joke), RAMBUS XDR2 RAM at 8Ghz Memory Speed with micro-threading making it fetch 8 bytes of data at a time instead of the typical 32 bytes which quadruples can quadruple memory speed and is also more efficient and able to pump 100GBps to the cell processor. the downside of the PS3 so far it's estimated to be around $500 and won't be released until the holiday season (hanukah for me) next year. the Xbox 360 however can not become a computer like the PS2 can be. Because Microsoft would lose a lot of money if people didn't need PC's, unlike Sony that supported the little PS2 Linux Computer kit. The cell processor however could never become a PC's CPU because of the different technology, and the fact it doesn't have some instruction sets. But both Xbox 360 and PS3 will be HDTV 720p and 1080p enabled with Dolby 5.1 Surround and IBM processors (Xbox 360's are 3.2Ghz IBM PowerPC processors, and PS3 is the Cell)



And I am santa claus.


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 6, 2005)

lol, yeah it seems a little farfetched, especially with the specs you're telling us these systems have, which are WAY more powerful than the manufacturers are stating, but until the systems are released I'm not gonna say yes or no to anyone's opinion or fact. And either way, right or wrong, thanks for the input man.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Sep 6, 2005)

AMDCam said:
			
		

> lol, yeah it seems a little farfetched, especially with the specs you're telling us these systems have, which are WAY more powerful than the manufacturers are stating, but until the systems are released I'm not gonna say yes or no to anyone's opinion or fact. And either way, right or wrong, thanks for the input man.


Oh no hes right, those specs are widely known. Im saying that if he has a Xbox 360, then I am Santa Claus. [/sarcasm]


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 7, 2005)

No I know what you mean, but like I said, from what I hear the specs are:

PS3                                           
3.2ghz Cell Processor                     
RAM?                                        
Graphics?                                     


XBOX 360
tri-core 3.2ghz (per core) IBM processor
512mb GDDR3 RAM
ATI 500mhz 9800 series-equivalent power Graphics card


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 7, 2005)

Sorry to burst you bubble again AMD, but  next gen architecture is very different from the one used in current PCs, just for one example, check this out:



> *Rumors and some game developer comments (on the record and off the record) have Xenon's performance on branch-intensive game control, AI, and physics code as ranging from mediocre to downright bad*. Xenon will be a streaming media monster, but the parts of the game engine that have to do with making the game fun to play (and not just pretty to look at) are probably going to suffer. Even if the PPE's branch prediction is significantly better than I think it is, the relatively meager 1MB L2 cache that the game control, AI, and physics code will have to share with procedural synthesis and other graphics code will ensure that programmers have a hard time getting good performance out of non-graphics parts of the game.
> 
> Furthermore, *the Xenon may be capable of running six threads at once, but the three types of branch-intensive code listed above are not as amenable to high levels of thread-level parallelization as graphics code*. On the other hand, these types of code do benefit greatly from out-of-order execution, which Xenon lacks completely, a decent amount of execution core width, which Xenon also lacks; branch prediction hardware, which Xenon is probably short on; and large caches, which Xenon is definitely short on. The end result is a recipe for a console that provides developers with a wealth of graphics resources but that asks them to do more with less on the non-graphical side of gaming.



And the Cell's scene looks even worst, so, if -just in theory- you could pry open the xbox360 (or the PS3 for that matter) and mix its parts with off the shelf PC components, it would not be that fast compared to today's PCs, and in some cases, it would be even slower...

Now, don't take me wrong, both consoles will be graphic crunching beasts when used for gaming, and feature some very exciting and interesting technology (like the R500's "free" FSAA, or Cell's array of SPEs for example) which will produce some intense special effects, once programers learn how to use them, it's just that with architectures that are so different from today's PCs, these new consoles would have a really hard time executing current software.

One more thing, I really need you to understand that we're not picking on you, it's very easy to get carried away with the numbers both MS and Sony are using to promote their products, but trust me, most of it is PR BS  

Here are some links you may be interested in reading for understanding the architecture that wil be found in both new consoles, I highly recommend you read them 

Inside the Xbox 360, part I: procedural synthesis and dynamic worlds 

Inside the Xbox 360, Part II: the Xenon CPU 

Introducing the IBM/Sony/Toshiba Cell Processor — Part I: the SIMD processing units 

Introducing the IBM/Sony/Toshiba Cell Processor -- Part II: The Cell Architecture 

I hope you find these articles useful


----------



## wazzledoozle (Sep 7, 2005)

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm

The GPU is basically the R500, which ATI licensed to microsoft and is much more powerful than the R520 and R580 parts. Its power wont be matched by another ATI chipset until R6xxx. Also, it will run at 500 MHz not 600 MHz as that guy said earlier.


> # 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines
> # Unified shader architecture


It will easily outpower any desktop chip, including the 7800GTX.
Too bad the R520 isnt going to be such a beast.


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 7, 2005)

Aww dang dude, I completely understand what you told me before Warlock, and I agreed before. I'm off the idea of an Xbox 360 PC, I was just talking about specs with the Jew. Although if it wasn't "BS" then that's what I'm talking about. If the specs were real and somehow customized for modern PC's, it'd be unbeatable, but it's just a dream. So don't get me wrong, now I do know that it isn't as powerful as I thought, but hopefully you understand where I'm coming from too.


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 7, 2005)

And Wazzledoozle, I had NO IDEA that it was that powerful. I just looked at the pixel performance and clockspeed, and it was nothing to brag about. But I guess that's just a small part of graphics card performance. It is strange though, when the Xbox was released it had a P3, and the P4's were already out. The PS2 had that 333mhz Emotion engine processor, and processors were already up to ghz by then. I'm saying, back then they were way behind and still performed better than any PC up until the last generation (9xxx Radeon, athlon xp, etc.), but this is the exact opposite this time. It's kind of scary how unbelievable these graphics are gonna be, I mean when you get a good game it will literally be like an interactive TV show or movie. Twice the power of the PS2 could give you true-to-life car graphics, twice the power of the Xbox could give you Doom 3-style Halo, and we're talking like 10x the power in these new systems. I think it's gonna be awesome, I can't wait to see Halo 3, Gran Turismo 5, and especially a Grand Theft Auto on these systems.


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 7, 2005)

i had an Xbox 360 prototype theres a difference. But I get my stuff from Ingram Micro so i can already get an X-FI Fatal1ty FPS Sound Card for about 2 months now. Ingram always has their stuff in stock minimum of 2 weeks before retail release. sometimes 1, 2 or even 3 months ahead


----------



## wazzledoozle (Sep 7, 2005)

AMDCam said:
			
		

> And Wazzledoozle, I had NO IDEA that it was that powerful. I just looked at the pixel performance and clockspeed, and it was nothing to brag about. But I guess that's just a small part of graphics card performance. It is strange though, when the Xbox was released it had a P3, and the P4's were already out. The PS2 had that 333mhz Emotion engine processor, and processors were already up to ghz by then. I'm saying, back then they were way behind and still performed better than any PC up until the last generation (9xxx Radeon, athlon xp, etc.), but this is the exact opposite this time. It's kind of scary how unbelievable these graphics are gonna be, I mean when you get a good game it will literally be like an interactive TV show or movie. Twice the power of the PS2 could give you true-to-life car graphics, twice the power of the Xbox could give you Doom 3-style Halo, and we're talking like 10x the power in these new systems. I think it's gonna be awesome, I can't wait to see Halo 3, Gran Turismo 5, and especially a Grand Theft Auto on these systems.


Yeah Grand Theft Auto with awesome graphics and physics on par with Half Life 2= best game ever


----------



## Velocity (Sep 7, 2005)

^^ i agree... lets hope for a 30s mafia gta ... have been waiting for one of those for a long time... maybe in chicago or somthing


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 7, 2005)

That would definitely be awesome, but I would actually look forward to even an enhanced port of something like GTA3, you know, like as a benchmark to compare the power of the 2 systems side-by-side. Although for a new game, definitely a mafia-type, just not too corny, and it seems pretty easy to make that era game seem corny.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 7, 2005)

I don't know, After GTA3 and GTA:VC I got tired of GTA:SA so fast, that I don't feel invited to the whole GTA thing again... you know, been there, done that...
Personally, I'm waiting for the next Forza, or Gran Turismo, I feel the next driving games will define who's who in the future generation of consoles, besides, this time Polyphony Digital really must be feeling the heat, so I expect the next GT to be revolutionary intead of just evolutionary.
FPS may also help define who's who in the next generation, I'm looking forward to Halo 3, Quake 4, and Killzone 2


----------



## Velocity (Sep 7, 2005)

well possibly... but rockstar usualy does extreme research before making a game (so as not to be cheesy) so im sure it would turn out fine... I feel that if they toned down the next gta from San Andreas they would get some fans back in the loop, because San Andreas just had too much you were required to do period... but i think the next Gta will be quite promising, graphicaly and gameplay wise... as for halo 3 maybe multiplayer will be ok... but halo 2 kinda ruined it for me, the single player was vastly too easy (from the origional) and much shorter (than the origional)...

Games i will be waiting for will be, next Gta, Quake 4, New Tomclancy Rainbow Six Game (lockdown), and more probaly.


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 7, 2005)

That is EXACTLY how I felt about GTA: san andreas. I mean it seems appealing to have so much to do, but sadly it turned out there was TOO much to do, in my experience. I never even got to the 3rd island and I don't care if I do or not. That's why I want a port of GTA3 on the new consoles, because that was so simple yet there was so much to do, plus it looked good on the PS2, I'd LOVE to see what the PS3 or Xbox 360 could do. Obviously I know a port won't just randomly enhance graphics, but if the developer's remade GTA3 like Capcom did with the Resident Evil series on Gamecube, that would be awesome.


----------



## Velocity (Sep 7, 2005)

i just got cheats and killed people/ jumped stuff on the motorcycle (allways my fav thing to do in gta anyway)


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 8, 2005)

I think i will get both the Xbox 360 and PS3. Sure the PS3 beats the Xbox 360 hands down but the Xbox 360 has its game titles i like such as Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders (they coming out with a sequel Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes) Halo 1, Halo 2, and Halo 3 plus Fable and Fable 2 thats coming out with Xbox 360 (Halo 3 and Fable 2 are for Xbox 360 all other games are for Xbox), But the PS3 has games i have always wanted to play, like Mobile Suit Gundam Wing, and all those other anime ones.


----------



## Velocity (Sep 8, 2005)

pfft anime is for fags... lol joke... Metal Gear was always my favorite game for ps2... It already looked realistic on ps2 lets hope for some interactive Tv with solid snake


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 8, 2005)

problem is that i been around computer since i was 3 (i'm 14 now) so i can tell the difference between computer graphics and whether something was filmed in a movie with a robot or real people. Many people say wow War of the Worlds looked so real, they thought they used actual things, i know for a fact the only things they used real life objects and materials were very few, mainly the actual aliens. But with this now Physx Procssor (PPU) it will boost reality in games, now with NovedX software (Half-Life 2 uses it along with some other ones) makes it more realistic, you throw a guy against a book shelf depending on the strength and his body, basically lots of variables, will affect books falling, the book case falling and how his body will land. software can do 200 objects at once while the PPU will enable over 32,000 with it actually increasing performance in games, and realistic feel to 3D movies. Imagine Oceans having real life looking waves different everytime like if you were at the beach, cloth blowing in the breeze as if it were real and the wind were blowing, a bomb under a bridge wouldn't blow up the same way every time (for instance if you need to blow out a bridge in a World war II game). Xbox 360 and PS3 will use some form of this. the PPU is expected to have an equal impact to gaming as the graphics card did. By making it so the CPU doesn't process the Physx and NovedX, and the Graphics also processing it as well, the Physx takes care of all physx processing leaving the CPU to do AI's, and all those and the graphics card to render the image. So thats an Extra $249-$299 for a "True High-Performance" Gaming Computer. So before you know it to be true gamer you need most of all, Fast Motherboard, Fast CPU, Fast RAM, Fast Hard Drives, Fast Video Card(s), kick-ass soundcard (soon to be a minimum of an X-Fi Fata1ty), and a Physx Processing Unit (PPU). The first Physx Board will be manufactured by my most hated OEM (pretty much any kind of board maker other than Intel (Mobo's), Sun (Mobo's), ATI(Videocard's), Visiontek(Videocard's)) ASUS and will be speced with: 125,000,000 transistors, 182mm^2 die size, 20 watt power consumption (4 pin molex connector), 128MB GDDR3 memory, 0.13 micron manufacturing process, active cooling system with fan and heatsink. Think of it is a 4th or 5th kind of processor in your computer (4 is CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), SPU (Sound Processing Unit) as I call it, and 4 is the physx chip, or maybe the 5th if you have 2 video cards in your computer, 6th if you have dual CPU's etc.) and I can't wait till i can have this baby, i'll probably ruin the first one i get because of drool on it so i'll order 2 lol j/k. It will come in Both PCI and PCI-E.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 8, 2005)

Jewfromdahood said:
			
		

> problem is that i been around computer since i was 3 (i'm 14 now) so i can tell the difference between computer graphics and whether something was filmed in a movie with a robot or real people. Many people say wow War of the Worlds looked so real, they thought they used actual things, i know for a fact the only things they used real life objects and materials were very few, mainly the actual aliens. But with this now Physx Procssor (PPU) it will boost reality in games, now with NovedX software (Half-Life 2 uses it along with some other ones) makes it more realistic, you throw a guy against a book shelf depending on the strength and his body, basically lots of variables, will affect books falling, the book case falling and how his body will land. software can do 200 objects at once while the PPU will enable over 32,000 with it actually increasing performance in games, and realistic feel to 3D movies. Imagine Oceans having real life looking waves different everytime like if you were at the beach, cloth blowing in the breeze as if it were real and the wind were blowing, a bomb under a bridge wouldn't blow up the same way every time (for instance if you need to blow out a bridge in a World war II game). Xbox 360 and PS3 will use some form of this. the PPU is expected to have an equal impact to gaming as the graphics card did. By making it so the CPU doesn't process the Physx and NovedX, and the Graphics also processing it as well, the Physx takes care of all physx processing leaving the CPU to do AI's, and all those and the graphics card to render the image. So thats an Extra $249-$299 for a "True High-Performance" Gaming Computer. So before you know it to be true gamer you need most of all, Fast Motherboard, Fast CPU, Fast RAM, Fast Hard Drives, Fast Video Card(s), kick-ass soundcard (soon to be a minimum of an X-Fi Fata1ty), and a Physx Processing Unit (PPU). The first Physx Board will be manufactured by my most hated OEM (pretty much any kind of board maker other than Intel (Mobo's), Sun (Mobo's), ATI(Videocard's), Visiontek(Videocard's)) ASUS and will be speced with: 125,000,000 transistors, 182mm^2 die size, 20 watt power consumption (4 pin molex connector), 128MB GDDR3 memory, 0.13 micron manufacturing process, active cooling system with fan and heatsink. Think of it is a 4th or 5th kind of processor in your computer (4 is CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), SPU (Sound Processing Unit) as I call it, and 4 is the physx chip, or maybe the 5th if you have 2 video cards in your computer, 6th if you have dual CPU's etc.) and I can't wait till i can have this baby, i'll probably ruin the first one i get because of drool on it so i'll order 2 lol j/k. It will come in Both PCI and PCI-E.



Geez, you should think of writing in paragraphs instead of using a single looong sentece, makes it really hard to read  

Dunno if I'm ready to dish an extra $200-$300 for a PPU after investing in so many "vital" PC components... maybe when games start requiring it, but for now, I think it isn't necessary to invest in a separate PPU card.


----------



## Velocity (Sep 8, 2005)

I plan on getting a console (for friends so we can play multiplayer, ect...) but im sticking with pc... as of now there are no games that even utilize a 6800ultras capabilitys... hardware is so far beyond software now that you will soon be able to buy a 150 video card and be virtualy lagless for the next few years..  Now is basicaly the time to upgrade... if you buy a top of the line 7800gt computer you will mostlikely experience no lag in games for the next 6 years... computers are where its at right now...


----------



## AMDCam (Sep 8, 2005)

I actually just made a thread on Physics processors a couple weeks ago wondering how much they would improve performance. That would be awesome, and I can tell you that I would be one of the 1st to be willing to spend money on a card that gives as much a performance boost as a graphics card.

I don't know about how long it's gonna be until the 7x00 series gets out-of-date, but I would assume less than 6 years. More like 3 or 4, because my 9800 is being pushed by DOOM 3 and Farcry and things. I mean, they are the state-of-the-art games and it's awesome that my card can push them flawlessly, but the card is only about 1 or 2 years older than the games, and it was the top-of-the-line card back then. So until a 32-pipeline 7x00 series comes out, I say it'll be out-of-date in around 4 years. I mean with all this new technology coming out, and the new consoles, games are gonna get REALLY advanced. I mean DOOM 3 was awesome, but now that I bet we have the power to literally recreate a human body perfectly with our hardware, we just need software artists and designers to make it work. I say within about a year we'll see some software pushing the X850's and 6800's. I'm just saying that because of the fact that these consoles are gonna kill most computers with graphics, and throughout history PC ports have always had better graphics than console versions, so it's gonna be hard to keep up with a console now, especially since a lot of you guys are saying the Xbox 360 will literally outdo even the new R520 series from ATI


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 9, 2005)

Velocity said:
			
		

> I plan on getting a console (for friends so we can play multiplayer, ect...) but im sticking with pc... as of now there are no games that even utilize a 6800ultras capabilitys... hardware is so far beyond software now that you will soon be able to buy a 150 video card and be virtualy lagless for the next few years..  Now is basicaly the time to upgrade... if you buy a top of the line 7800gt computer you will mostlikely experience no lag in games for the next 6 years... computers are where its at right now...



No lag in 6 years! Try using a Voodoo2 (the fastest video card 6 years ago) or even two Voodoo2s in SLI for today's games and then tell me if you don't get any lag... or if you can even boot any game that was published in the last two years for that matter


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 9, 2005)

Check this for example, this is how Doom3 looks running on two 6 year old Voodoo2s in SLI:












Altough the framerates are about average, this game works only after using a custom made patch (made by a genius btw), and the IQ makes you want throw up, practically no current game boots on that kind of video card


----------



## Velocity (Sep 9, 2005)

LMFAO point taken... lolz those graphics KILL the 7800gtx sli... VOODOO all teh way lmao...
but you have to admit that harware tech is far beyond that of game technology... hardware is a good 2 steps ahead of games...


----------



## wazzledoozle (Sep 9, 2005)

Haha I remember seeing that a while ago.


----------



## Polaris573 (Sep 9, 2005)

Two voodos in SLI, thats funny.  Gives doom 3 that classic feel.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Sep 9, 2005)

Funny how old technologies like SLI or multi GPUs video cards have a tendency to make their way around  

About the longevity of video cards, yes, top of the line cards shouldn't have a problem playing new games at least two years after their release, I know my now defunct 9800XT didn't have problems


----------



## zAAm (Sep 15, 2005)

Yeah, but if games were made to use all the features of the top-o-the-line video cards while in development for 3 years then they'd have to add new features to the engine on a yearly basis. And developers would rather just get the game complete as soon as possible LOL. And multi GPU's on SLI is something I'm waiting for. Just don't remake another Voodoo5 6000... That thing barely fits anywhere.


----------

