ATI's next gen R420 getting 2-3x performance gains

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zackman
  • Start date Start date
Z

Zackman

John said:
....if the Xbox2 does not run the most popular Xbox1 titles, it will
blow nobody away.
Click to expand...

The only backwards compatible console in recent history was the PS2, and ask
any PS2 owners you know how many PS1 games they play on their machine and
you'll see what a non-feature this is. Anyone who buys a console more than
six months after its launch is going to have a wide enough selection of
games that they likely wouldn't want to play titles from the previous
generation anyway. It would be nice, but it's by no means a necessary
feature.

And guess what? You're not required by law to give up your Xbox when you buy
an Xbox2! You can actually own both at the same time! And maybe in a few
years they'll have a working Xbox emulator on the PC anyway.
M$$ have deliberately made backward compatibility as difficult
as possible....since many of the high-performance Xbox titles use
all the tricks in the hardware book for squeezing polygons
and frame-rate, and the Xbox2 hardware is totally different.
Click to expand...

They use all these tricks so the games look good, not to deliberately make
backwards compatibility difficult.
Emulation... forget it............
Click to expand...

Emulation probably won't work well enough to be feasible. But after the
first few months, nobody will care. When I'm playing Halo 3 on my Xbox 2,
I'm not going to be pining for the lo-res days of Halo 1 and 2.

-Z-
 
over current cards running DX9.

http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/456?
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10364
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33743023
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1971&p=2


just think, the Xbox 2 will blow even this new R420 away, since Xbox 2
graphics processor will be based on R500 :)
Click to expand...

.....if the Xbox2 does not run the most popular Xbox1 titles, it will
blow nobody away. M$$$ will have to build yet another customer-base
from scratch and generate total market confusion when people stop
buying Xbox1 titles in anticipation of Xbox2 versions. Yet another
dead-end console............

M$$ have deliberately made backward compatibility as difficult
as possible....since many of the high-performance Xbox titles use
all the tricks in the hardware book for squeezing polygons
and frame-rate, and the Xbox2 hardware is totally different.
Emulation... forget it............

John Lewis
 
Well, at this point to me, it seems like emulating the old XBox console
would not be too impossible with the muuuuch more powerful hardware. Even
though it is amazingly inefficent to emulate, when you have a system thats
many times faster, it is entirely possible. Backwards compatibilty may be a
reality yet!... well maybe.
 
....if the Xbox2 does not run the most popular Xbox1 titles, it will
blow nobody away. M$$$ will have to build yet another customer-base
from scratch and generate total market confusion when people stop
buying Xbox1 titles in anticipation of Xbox2 versions. Yet another
dead-end console............
Click to expand...

If MS fails to get backwards compatibility, then yes, the X-Box 2 will
arrive to market dead in the water. MS would need to make significant
gains in its exclusive deals and the quality of those titles.
M$$ have deliberately made backward compatibility as difficult
as possible....since many of the high-performance Xbox titles use
all the tricks in the hardware book for squeezing polygons
and frame-rate, and the Xbox2 hardware is totally different.
Emulation... forget it............
Click to expand...


Emulation of the P3/Celeron CPU inside the X-Box 1 is not much of an
issue, especially if rumors are true of multiple CPU cores inside the
system. MS purchased Connectix and thus Virtual PC so it does have the
resources.

Emulation of the NV2A graphics chip may prove more difficult but I doubt
that it is impossible for the X-Box 2 hardware. Chances are that pure GPU
instructions will be translated from NV2A to R500 on the CPU and then
executed on the R500 GPU. The sound chip and Ethernet controller may also
be a point of trouble for emulation but again, I doubt that it will be
impossible. Note that only code that directly executes on the GPU, sound
chip ect will need to be translated. Calls made to an API will not have
to be emulated since the API can be rewritten with the new hardware in
mind.
 
Zackman said:
The only backwards compatible console in recent history was the PS2, and ask
any PS2 owners you know how many PS1 games they play on their machine and
you'll see what a non-feature this is. Anyone who buys a console more than
six months after its launch is going to have a wide enough selection of
games that they likely wouldn't want to play titles from the previous
generation anyway. It would be nice, but it's by no means a necessary
feature.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. None of my PS2 owning friends have any PS1 games. I
would say that backwards compatability is a nice feature especially as you
say in first six months of a consoles release. You could get that blend of
Xbox and Xbox 2 games. After that is rbackwards compatability really so
useful? Unless of course you start getting nostalgic and longing for the
days of Halo and KOTOR. If not including this feature will help to keep the
launch price of what I expect to be an already higher priced machine then
the original, so be it. It's not the back breaker some make it out to be.
Gamecube's lack of success had nothing to do with the fact that it is not
backwards compatible to N64. Yes one is cartridge and one is disc, no
matter, it's still not the difference in succes or failure. IMO.
 
Maybe that's why jap's were sleeping in lines to get their hands on ps2,
that's why ps2 is most sold console in history. Why people don't play many
ps1 games on ps2 is cause PS1 games look so very crap compaired to current
standards.
When you look at latest X-box games, they look very up-to-date, compared to
current pc games. Despite console being 2-3 years old, games looks good.
That's why many xbox2 owners WILL play xbox1 games they can find cheaper.
 
The only backwards compatible console in recent history was the PS2, and ask
any PS2 owners you know how many PS1 games they play on their machine and
you'll see what a non-feature this is. Anyone who buys a console more than
six months after its launch is going to have a wide enough selection of
games that they likely wouldn't want to play titles from the previous
generation anyway. It would be nice, but it's by no means a necessary
feature.
Click to expand...

I'd like to cite the Gameboy Advance as a counter example. The system is
backwards compatible with two previous generations of software. Alot of
older GB and GBC games are still popular and played on the new hardware.
Similarly, PS1 games are still played on the PS2 even though the PS2 has
been on the market for over three years. I wouldn't say playing older
titles is the main function of newer systems but backwards compatibility
is an important feature well into a system's lifetime.
And guess what? You're not required by law to give up your Xbox when you buy
an Xbox2! You can actually own both at the same time! And maybe in a few
years they'll have a working Xbox emulator on the PC anyway.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm surprised no functioning X-Box emulator exists already.
 
Maybe that's why jap's were sleeping in lines to get their hands on ps2,
that's why ps2 is most sold console in history. Why people don't play many
ps1 games on ps2 is cause PS1 games look so very crap compaired to current
standards.
Click to expand...

My understanding that the PS1 is still the most popular console in
history, behind the 8 bit NES with the PS2 in third (which is fast
approaching the number 2 spot).

Graphics should come second only to gameplay. I could name a few titles
that are 'ugly' by todays standard and have more depth to gameplay than
some of the best looking titles on the market.
When you look at latest X-box games, they look very up-to-date, compared to
current pc games. Despite console being 2-3 years old, games looks good.
That's why many xbox2 owners WILL play xbox1 games they can find cheaper.
Click to expand...

Actually, the X-Box isn't that impressive next to a PC built for gaming.
Game load faster, look better, maintain higher frame rates and have more
options than its console counter part. Also an X-Box is designed to
connect to a TV, which is a disadvantage towards picture quality. If its
graphics you want, then the PC will win over an X-Box.
 
Zackman said:
The only backwards compatible console in recent history was the PS2,
and ask any PS2 owners you know how many PS1 games they play on their
machine and you'll see what a non-feature this is. Anyone who buys a
console more than six months after its launch is going to have a wide
enough selection of games that they likely wouldn't want to play
titles from the previous generation anyway. It would be nice, but
it's by no means a necessary feature.
Click to expand...

Not everybody is rich. I have a friend who bought a PS2 when they were still
quite new on HP and was financially unable to buy any PS2 games for a while.
However, he had 40-odd PS1 games that he could entertain himself (and the
kids, who still perfer some of the PS1 games) with in the meantime. Oh, he
traded his PS1 in as a deposit on the PS2.

Just another perspective. (In this grossly over-crossposted thread).
 
John Lewis said:
....if the Xbox2 does not run the most popular Xbox1 titles, it will
blow nobody away. M$$$ will have to build yet another customer-base
from scratch and generate total market confusion when people stop
buying Xbox1 titles in anticipation of Xbox2 versions. Yet another
dead-end console............

M$$ have deliberately made backward compatibility as difficult
as possible....since many of the high-performance Xbox titles use
all the tricks in the hardware book for squeezing polygons
and frame-rate, and the Xbox2 hardware is totally different.
Emulation... forget it............

John Lewis
Click to expand...


Ahh, the voice of doom 'n gloom speaks again. The same man who wrote that
the R300 would be significantly slower than NV30 because the latter was
using the latest lithography process.

John
 
Maybe that's why jap's were sleeping in lines to get their hands on ps2,
that's why ps2 is most sold console in history. Why people don't play many
ps1 games on ps2 is cause PS1 games look so very crap compaired to current
standards.
When you look at latest X-box games, they look very up-to-date, compared to
current pc games. Despite console being 2-3 years old, games looks good.
That's why many xbox2 owners WILL play xbox1 games they can find cheaper.
Click to expand...

XBOX looks better than current?

Uh... yeah... funny shit. Sure, if you PC has a Gf2 card on it.

UT2004 full blown in 1280x1024 can not be touched by an XBOX game...
especially something like HALO which is regarded as one of the best.

(its nice, but its still limiting).

Give it a try, pump the details to max (if you have a modern video
card) and play onslaught or Assault.

For kicks... I set UT2004 to 640x480... ugh... not so chrisp... kinda
blocky and somewhat jagged...
 
~misfit~ said:
Not everybody is rich. I have a friend who bought a PS2 when they were still
quite new on HP and was financially unable to buy any PS2 games for a while.
However, he had 40-odd PS1 games that he could entertain himself (and the
kids, who still perfer some of the PS1 games) with in the meantime. Oh, he
traded his PS1 in as a deposit on the PS2.
Click to expand...

That's silly. How much did he get for the used PS1? Exactly.
 
kevin getting said:
I'd like to cite the Gameboy Advance as a counter example. The system is
backwards compatible with two previous generations of software. Alot of
older GB and GBC games are still popular and played on the new hardware.
Click to expand...

GB is a poor analogy. You think GBA is a powerful platform?!
It could have been much better if they didn't include backwards
compatibility. But, including such on a portable system is highly
different from a console system. People cannot and will not
carry around several different portable systems whereas most
people can and do have multiple consoles. Even the smallest
of apartments can fit multiple consoles.

Similarly, PS1 games are still played on the PS2 even though the PS2 has
been on the market for over three years. I wouldn't say playing older
titles is the main function of newer systems but backwards compatibility
is an important feature well into a system's lifetime.
Click to expand...

Reports here suggest otherwise. Besides, PS1 titles can be played
on a PS1 console, which is what -- the size of a paperback book
and $50 new?
 
Darthy said:
XBOX looks better than current?
Click to expand...

He didn't say that.
Uh... yeah... funny shit. Sure, if you PC has a Gf2 card on it.

UT2004 full blown in 1280x1024 can not be touched by an XBOX game...
especially something like HALO which is regarded as one of the best.

(its nice, but its still limiting).

Give it a try, pump the details to max (if you have a modern video
card) and play onslaught or Assault.

For kicks... I set UT2004 to 640x480... ugh... not so chrisp... kinda
blocky and somewhat jagged...
Click to expand...

When was UT2004 released? And is it any better than UT2003 or should
they have named it UT2004: Quake Clone II?
 
~misfit~ said:
Not everybody is rich. I have a friend who bought a PS2 when they were still
quite new on HP and was financially unable to buy any PS2 games for a while.
However, he had 40-odd PS1 games that he could entertain himself (and the
kids, who still perfer some of the PS1 games) with in the meantime. Oh, he
traded his PS1 in as a deposit on the PS2.

Just another perspective. (In this grossly over-crossposted thread).
Click to expand...

So you're saying he traded in his PS1 so he could buy a PS2 just to play
PS1 games till he could afford PS2 games? Why didn't he just wait to
buy the PS2? He could have waited for a price drop then turn his PS1 in.
 
USAF LM said:
So you're saying he traded in his PS1 so he could buy a PS2 just to play
PS1 games till he could afford PS2 games? Why didn't he just wait to
buy the PS2? He could have waited for a price drop then turn his PS1 in.
Click to expand...

I agree, though the argument some use in this situation is that people
with low funds sometimes buy a new console when it ships even though
they can't afford to buy any new games for it because they intend to
rent new games for a while instead.
 
Bao said:
GB is a poor analogy. You think GBA is a powerful platform?!
It could have been much better if they didn't include backwards
compatibility. But, including such on a portable system is highly
different from a console system. People cannot and will not
carry around several different portable systems whereas most
people can and do have multiple consoles. Even the smallest
of apartments can fit multiple consoles.
Click to expand...

I was not aware that the penetration for even single consoles was sufficient
that one could say that "most people" have them. Nobody I know has
multiple game consoles--most people I know don't even have one.
 
J. Clarke said:
I was not aware that the penetration for even single consoles was sufficient
that one could say that "most people" have them. Nobody I know has
multiple game consoles--most people I know don't even have one.
Click to expand...

I admit that was not what I meant, which was that those who want
multiple consoles generally do and have no problem with finding
room for two (or more) consoles versus one.

However, I believe that the unintended meaning of my post is also
basically correct. In this article,

http://www.serra.com/Corpinfo/corp_pr_inthenews_nintendo2.htm
(last edit date of 05/31/2002, so content is older than that)

....it is mentioned that 40% of American households own a Nintendo
game system. The article makes no mention of Gamecube, so factor
those owners in as well. (Sure, make an adjustment mentally for
those who trade in consoles when they get a new one, but those
trade-ins are intended to go into yet another household as well;
yes, I'm aware that there are used consoles in store inventories
at any given time, so they are not in a household, and neither are
those that break and are thrown away.) Then add in Playstation,
PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, and any of numerous consoles of the
past that people still have including, but not limited to: 2600, 5200,
7800, Jaguar, Intellivision, Colecovision, Sears incarnations of
consoles, Astrocade, Vectrex, Odyssey, TurboGrafx, Sega SMS,
Genesis, SegaCD, Saturn, 3DO, etc.

Doesn't seem to be a great leap to conclude that years after the
article was written that most households have at least one video
game system, and I'm not even including home computers used
primarily if not solely for gaming (and take up much more space).
 
[snip]
However, I believe that the unintended meaning of my post is also
basically correct. In this article,
http://www.serra.com/Corpinfo/corp_pr_inthenews_nintendo2.htm
(last edit date of 05/31/2002, so content is older than that)
...it is mentioned that 40% of American households own a Nintendo
game system. The article makes no mention of Gamecube, so factor
those owners in as well.
Click to expand...
[snip]

I am aware that the article includes GameBoy in that figure. My
point still stands even if one subtracts households that own a
GameBoy system but no other video game system at all. (Really,
how many is that anyway? Most people I know with a GameBoy
also have at least one console system.)
 
Back
Top