| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
PlayStation 3 chip on track | |
|
||
| Time: 03:26 EST/08:26 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Sony revealed new details Monday on the chip that will power the next version of its PlayStation video game machine and said development is on track to deliver products based on the chip next year. Sony and partners IBM and Toshiba said in a joint statement that IBM is ready to begin pilot production next year on the "Cell" processor jointly developed by the companies. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:01:57 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (66.228.91.60) at 11/30/2004 2:07:57 PM |
|
One has to wonder if this is a wise move on Sony's part. The PS1 and PS2 were notoriously hard to program for. The Xbox, on the other hand, which uses more or less off the shelf 3D hardware and a slightly modfied version of DirectX, is widely considered an excellent platform for developers.
Will the Cell processor be faster/better than any/all existing 3D hardware from companies like NVidia and ATI? If so, they should license it to everybody and make a killing. If not, what's the point? Just makes life harder for developers and will make development times longer for the games that are needed to make the platform successful. |
| #2 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/30/2004 2:17:56 PM |
| RMD, I have a question about your Direct X comment. It was my understanding that the Xbox didn't have Direct X, which was the reason behind the lack of animation of menus and such in the Xbox Media Extender Kit interface on the TV. I guess the guy that told me that the reason for no animation could be wrong about it, but I really don't know. |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/30/2004 2:46:30 PM |
|
"If so, they should license it to everybody and make a killing. If not, what's the point?"
Firstly, who says they won't. And secondly, it's not a GPU. And, thirdly, by all reckoning, Cells will be appearing in TVs, stereos, and other consumer devices. Who says it won't be leveraged across and outside of the console? |
| #4 By 2332 (66.228.91.60) at 11/30/2004 4:03:33 PM |
|
#2 - "It was my understanding that the Xbox didn't have Direct X"
Essentially the Xbox has a version of DirectX similar to v8.1. There are some definite differences, but it's very easy to port a PC game to the Xbox because of the use of the pseudo-DirectX and Win2k kernel. "which was the reason behind the lack of animation of menus and such in the Xbox Media Extender Kit interface on the TV" No idea... maybe there is a limitation, but it seems unlikely considering the numerous animations in the rest of the Xbox menus. #3 - "Firstly, who says they won't." Not me. "And secondly, it's not a GPU." Well, the article states "That machine is intended mainly for creating computer animation and enabling other demanding graphics tasks.", but regardless, just replace my comments about NVidia and ATI with AMD and Intel. "And, thirdly, by all reckoning, Cells will be appearing in TVs, stereos, and other consumer devices." The article says it will be appearing in TVs from Sony and Toshiba. That doesn't mean that they're licensing the technology to others. "Who says it won't be leveraged across and outside of the console?" Again, not me. |
| #5 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/30/2004 4:37:09 PM |
| Why did you ask any of the questions then, RMD? Each one of them predicates at least one or more fo the presumptions that you deny having. |
| #6 By 2332 (66.228.91.60) at 11/30/2004 5:31:57 PM |
|
#5 - " Why did you ask any of the questions then, RMD? Each one of them predicates at least one or more fo the presumptions that you deny having."
What? I asked the questions because I was curious as to what other people think about the subject. You need to relax. Stop assuming people are attacking your views simply because they are asking questions. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/30/2004 5:53:25 PM |
|
What are my views? I don't have any views on the subject.
You asked why they haven't licensed it to ATi and Nvidia. I asked how do you know they haven't tried or don't intend to. You claimed their was no point in producing the Cell. I said it appears that the infrastructure looks to be there to use the distributed capabilities so there certainly is a point. You claimed there were no prejudgements in your statements when you've clearly asked loaded questions. I asked you why you asked loaded questions if you didn't believe the load you placed upon the question. Maybe you should lighten up. |
| #8 By 2332 (66.228.91.60) at 11/30/2004 6:10:39 PM |
|
#7- Man, you've really lost it.
"What are my views? I don't have any views on the subject." Clearly you do have views because you felt the need to reply to my post. Are you so intent on disagreeing with everybody you possible can that you deny the obvious? "You asked why they haven't licensed it to ATi and Nvidia." I did? Where? When? I said no such thing. I asked IF they will make it available for licensing in general, no specifically to ATI or NVidia, and I didn't say "why haven't they". "I asked how do you know they haven't tried or don't intend to." I never made ANY claim that they wouldn't. I asked IF THEY WOULD. It's a simple question. "You claimed their was no point in producing the Cell." I did? I don't think I did. I said that if the Cell wasn't better than the existing alternatives available now than there would be no point in making it. Are you claiming that this is the case? You must be for you then to conclude that I was claiming there there is no point in producing the Cell. "You claimed there were no prejudgements in your statements when you've clearly asked loaded questions." Funny, I don't think I need to claim that. I know exactly what I meant when I typed those questions. You do not. You've clearly decided that it's your job to be as much of a dick on these boards as possible. "Maybe you should lighten up." Funny, you're the one lashing out. |
| #9 By 2332 (66.92.78.189) at 12/1/2004 9:15:28 AM |
| See Sodajerk? Halcyon plays nice with others. |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 12/1/2004 12:41:39 PM |
| And what did Halcyon say? They are working to license it. It's not the GPU component of the system. Seems my statements are perfectly in tune with his. Play nice? Whatever, dude. I guess I'm lashing out. |
| #11 By 2332 (66.228.91.60) at 12/1/2004 3:30:36 PM |
|
#11 - You honestly can't see the difference in what Halcyon said versus what you said?
Get a grip, man. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:01:57 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
