PS 3 chip faster than Intel or AMD
Comments
-
Originally posted by Demiurge
The average gamer is 29 years old (Yes, this is a fact). Nintendo won't be anything if they can't appeal to the mass market. They don't have a niche because Sony and Microsoft have kids games as well as the adult games.
This is what has happened to Nintendo. The business choices they have made have been deplorable and they dug their own grave...fortunately for them they're not completely dead yet.
That is a bunch of ****. Guess what those 29 year old gamers grew up on? They cut thier teeth on Atari and Colecovision and matured on Nintendo Entertainment Systems which came bundled with Super Mario Brothers. If anything, those 29 year old gamers are the roots of the Video Game Generation and they are what is driving Nintendo to put out the sappy, family based games with cartoonish graphics and diabetically sweet plots.
It makes me feel old because all these supposed "video game experts" are 5-10 years younger than me and have no clue what the word Nintendo means in popular culture nor what it's past was or where it's roots started with Atari and it's competitors.
Bad business choices my ****! Nintendo has been around for 30 years. It ain't dyin' and it ain't going anywhere. If you think that the 29 year old gamers are what Nintendo markets to then you really have no clue what you're talking about. Nintendo markets to parents because thier games are "safer" for children and parents want an attention grabber that they can stick the noisy kids in front of for a few hours while they go and try to live thier lives like they did without kids.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
Best Buy has an old school game console with like 20 games or something for sale for 30 bucks.
I've seen these in the store near me for a couple months now. They had four thousand of those when I first saw them, now they're down to only a couple dozen or so on hand.
Obviously, people did the older stuff and will still buy it... -
Originally posted by Polkmaniac
Best Buy has an old school game console with like 20 games or something for sale for 30 bucks.
I've seen these in the store near me for a couple months now. They had four thousand of those when I first saw them, now they're down to only a couple dozen or so on hand.
Obviously, people did the older stuff and will still buy it...
admittedly there were a fair share of crappy games 10-15 years ago, but there were alot of games that had alot more to offer than some of today's bestsellers. so many people today are focused on just the graphics alone that there are a TON of "pretty" looking games that just plain suck and are no fun to play after the first 15 minutes. there is so much more that needs to go into a game to give it lasting ability than just high-end graphics.
that's another reason i hope nintendo will always be around. they are truly innovative and don't just spew out game after game with slightly improving graphics but horrible gameplay and lasting ability. -
-
Originally posted by Jstas
That is a bunch of ****. Guess what those 29 year old gamers grew up on? They cut thier teeth on Atari and Colecovision and matured on Nintendo Entertainment Systems which came bundled with Super Mario Brothers. If anything, those 29 year old gamers are the roots of the Video Game Generation and they are what is driving Nintendo to put out the sappy, family based games with cartoonish graphics and diabetically sweet plots.
It makes me feel old because all these supposed "video game experts" are 5-10 years younger than me and have no clue what the word Nintendo means in popular culture nor what it's past was or where it's roots started with Atari and it's competitors.
Bad business choices my ****! Nintendo has been around for 30 years. It ain't dyin' and it ain't going anywhere. If you think that the 29 year old gamers are what Nintendo markets to then you really have no clue what you're talking about. Nintendo markets to parents because thier games are "safer" for children and parents want an attention grabber that they can stick the noisy kids in front of for a few hours while they go and try to live thier lives like they did without kids.
Is there a reason you didn't debunk my '****' estimation of the situation?
Microsoft and Sony have the majority of the marked both individually and combined over Nintendo. This is a fact. You can't refute the numbers. The #1 complaint on Nintendo is they make games that are too childish and that's all they make. That's also another fact that it looks like Nintendo is trying to change now. What a '29' year old enjoys isn't what a '6' year old enjoys. Comparing what I liked in 1985 to 2004 is night and day. Microsoft and Sony appeal to the ENTIRE market...Nintendo..does not. They'd be better off sticking to just making games if they don't want to deal with the changing times. If they do, great, but they hadn't started to do that until just recently and their latest handheld is a step in the right direction.
Nintendo ain't dyin? They've been dying. Their revitalization will be solely because of the choice they make to play to the entire market of gamers and not just one segment. They're only hurting themselves by doing it and it's a moronic business choice.
I should know..our family has run a very sucessful business for the last 40 years and anyone who hasn't run a business doesn't have the first clue what goes into it. It was a moronic decison on their part and a leader was dethroned. The only way they'll ever get back on top is by outdoing Microsoft and Sony.
You can cry and be a jerk in your post some more if you want, but it doesn't change the facts. While you're at it you might want to check your attitude at the door because you turned a rather civil conversation into some real condescending b.s.....but hey...fight fire with fire...when are you actually going to refute my statement or the facts (they're stubborn things aren't they?). -
Post some facts and not your opinions and I'll have something to refute.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
I like banana pudding
-
Battleships are big.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
Originally posted by Jstas
Post some facts and not your opinions and I'll have something to refute.
I did. It's not an opinion that Nintendo is way behind both Sony and Microsoft and it's not an opinion that creating only kiddie games is what caused the above fact to be true.
It's also true that Nintendo can only save face by opening themselves up to more developers and gaming genres or face the wrath of the ensuing future which will completely nullify them as a major player in the gaming market.
I guess I'm just a moron though and why everything I just said is what Nintendo is striving to do (open themselves up to the entire market). Amazing. :rolleyes: -
-
Originally posted by Jstas
Post some facts and not your opinions and I'll have something to refute.
I gotta agree with Jstas on this one. Post something more than "nintendo is going to hell" and we'll take your posts seriously. Just because you're in a business doesn't mean anything. Smart businessmen don't focus on one market when they can dip their hands in one, do well (yet not dominate it), and then dominate another. To get out of the video game realm... look at what Polk is doing. They're morphing a bit from speakers and venturing into other areas. Are they going to dominate any one market? no... but when one area goes down (ie speaker sales), they can make up for it in other areas.Brian Knauss
ex-Electrical Engineer for Polk -
Did I say Nintendo is going to hell? No I didn't.
Nintendo did lose dramatic market share with the onset of Sony to the scene and even moreso with Microsoft. These are facts. What is it you guys want me to show you? I haven't heard you deny this fact so I really don't know what all the beef is about.
Sid made a comment about Nintendo and he was pretty much right. Nintendo is actually now trying to come back into the fold and expanding itself into the market it ignored. The market it was ignoring is the same market that made them the #1 gaming company in the world...only these kids are now adults and have different tastes.
Do we still like Super Mario? Yes. Do a vast majority of people love the new wave FPS and visually stunning RPGs? Yes. I happen to like both formats.....but when I have a choice to make I make the choice to go with the companies that give me the greatest ammount of choices. That was Microsoft and Sony, not Nintendo.
It's an opinion to say that was a bad business move? If that's true why now is Nintendo moving into the market it ignored for so long? :eek:
Is it too late? Who knows...I doubt it, but it would be merely a guess on my part and I'm not sure how I come down on it.
I also own the DS, but I also feel PSP will give it very stiff competition if not kill it. It can play PS2 quality games.
I never understood the argument that Graphics AND Gameplay can't coexist. Like all graphically stunning games are somehow 'not fun'. It's such a lame argument. I love my old Nintendo games as much as the next guy, but they don't hold a candle to HL2, Raven Shield, Unreal Tournament, you name it. -
Sorry Demi...
But when it comes to stunning FPSs and RPG, it's all at the computer, there are so many games out on Computer where you don't have to pay to play online, the abilty to get massive mulitiplayer, and still be able to use the blasted thing for something other than gaming, it really does go to computers, sure Halo was big, but no offense, it's a monotonous game, with a cult following.
As for the PSP, a wide screen doesn't sell everything. backwards compatibility, easy networking and an already big gamebase will. Again, I worked my job again, and saw even more kids playing their gameboys, I mean, people are still buying Gameboy Advance SPs! I think that Nintendo is still doing quite well, and will do so for quite some time, people really do enjoy a "childish" game, those really are the fun ones. Sure blood and guts are nice, but sometimes, its nice going to something a little less grusome.
My 2 cents... -
Again...if what you say is true...why is Nintendo moving in that direction now?
That's still the question nobody has answered for me if I'm wrong.
It's not about blood and guts and saying that a graphically stunning game is about blood and guts isn't remotely true.
Gran Turismo 4. Is that going to be on Gamecube? No. Games like that are huge and they're not on platforms that Nintendo has. That's just one small example.
All that aside...all the 'childish' games are also on the Microsoft and Sony platforms so it seems rather a moot point. Handhelds aren't consoles, but I agree Nintendo has been boss there, but then again...what competition has there been? None, really....
-
Perhaps none, but Nintendo has been able to keep it that way, for a very long time. Unfortunatly, a great majority, though not all of the graphical stunners are blood and guts, it's going to be a bit before it expands outwards. And just to be a stickler, the DS is technically a platform.
Ya, know, intelligent debate like this is actually pretty nice... -
Originally posted by Demiurge
Did I say Nintendo is going to hell? No I didn't.
Go back a couple posts to this quote:
"Nintendo ain't dyin? They've been dying."
Hell... dying... same thing.Brian Knauss
ex-Electrical Engineer for Polk -
Originally posted by Demiurge
Again...if what you say is true...why is Nintendo moving in that direction now?
That's still the question nobody has answered for me if I'm wrong.
It's not about blood and guts and saying that a graphically stunning game is about blood and guts isn't remotely true.
Gran Turismo 4. Is that going to be on Gamecube? No. Games like that are huge and they're not on platforms that Nintendo has. That's just one small example.
All that aside...all the 'childish' games are also on the Microsoft and Sony platforms so it seems rather a moot point. Handhelds aren't consoles, but I agree Nintendo has been boss there, but then again...what competition has there been? None, really....
dude... where is this nintendo hatred coming from?? did your parents not get you one when you were little and now you hate nintendo because of it???? :P j/k
seriously though, i don't understand why discussions about consoles always get this heated. everyone has their personal preference, but don't force your opinions on other people.
Gran Turismo? I can't stand to play it. Halo? yawn... FPS bore me to tears. Does that mean that all of them suck? No, but that affects my choice of consoles and that's why I prefer Nintendo.
Eternal Darkness, Wind Waker, Paper Mario, Mario Kart, Metriod, Mario Golf/Tennis, Tales of Symphonia... can I play any of these games on PS2/XBOX? No. Not to mention the *thousands* of classic games I can get for Game Boy and play on my TV with the Game Boy Player.
Does it piss me off that there are lots of people who love FPS and blood/guts/sex in their video games? NO. Does it piss me off that there are companies that cater to those people? NO.
Why does it seemingly piss you off so much that Nintendo makes games that I like??
I know everyone thinks that they are the center of the universe but guess what, there are a TON of products out there that you have NO INTEREST in whatsoever but the companies that make those products are doing just fine because not everyone is like you. -
I didn't expect this thread to be as entertaining as it is.:D
Anyway, I'm glad IBM made the "Cell" chip to compete with Intel for the PC market. Although AMD makes a more efficient chip than Intel, AMD's market share is miniscule. More competition in CPU's is good news for consumers. -
Yes, yes it is. It'll certainly force a redesign in the Intel/AMD camp and who knows, we may even see the rebirth of the PowerPC!Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
Originally posted by Jstas
Yes, yes it is. It'll certainly force a redesign in the Intel/AMD camp and who knows, we may even see the rebirth of the PowerPC!
it will certainly take more than some outrageous performance claims and one gaming console deal to even moderately break into the PC microprocessor business. Intel has shown through the years it will do whatever monopolistic/illegal tactics are necessary to retain control of the market. competition is good but don't count your chickens before they hatch. AMD has consistently made better products than Intel over the past several years and it hasn't had much impact.
i will be surprised if this gets even the notoriety the PowerPC got with Apple. -
Originally posted by PhantomOG
dude... where is this nintendo hatred coming from?? did your parents not get you one when you were little and now you hate nintendo because of it???? :P j/k
seriously though, i don't understand why discussions about consoles always get this heated. everyone has their personal preference, but don't force your opinions on other people.
Gran Turismo? I can't stand to play it. Halo? yawn... FPS bore me to tears. Does that mean that all of them suck? No, but that affects my choice of consoles and that's why I prefer Nintendo.
Eternal Darkness, Wind Waker, Paper Mario, Mario Kart, Metriod, Mario Golf/Tennis, Tales of Symphonia... can I play any of these games on PS2/XBOX? No. Not to mention the *thousands* of classic games I can get for Game Boy and play on my TV with the Game Boy Player.
Does it piss me off that there are lots of people who love FPS and blood/guts/sex in their video games? NO. Does it piss me off that there are companies that cater to those people? NO.
Why does it seemingly piss you off so much that Nintendo makes games that I like??
I know everyone thinks that they are the center of the universe but guess what, there are a TON of products out there that you have NO INTEREST in whatsoever but the companies that make those products are doing just fine because not everyone is like you.
This is what I don't understand...why do you accuse me of hating Nintendo? I own all their products other than the Game Cube. They're a great gaming company. Because I say that they've ignored a HUGE segment of the gaming market is a fact. That's not hate...it's the truth. As I said...I own the DS. Why did I spend my money on that if I 'hate' them.
I really wish people would read the posts rather than infer things that aren't there. -
Mrs Lippy's car.....is green
-
Mrs. Lippy's ____ is pink.
-
bumping an old thread but back on topic...
an excellent article explaining the difference between Sony's "Cell" architecture/technology and the current PC's
here
if you read the whole thing (LONG) you will understand why it is naive/ignorant to make the claim "PS3 chip faster than Intel or AMD" -
Originally posted by PhantomOG
bumping an old thread but back on topic...
an excellent article explaining the difference between Sony's "Cell" architecture/technology and the current PC's
here
if you read the whole thing (LONG) you will understand why it is naive/ignorant to make the claim "PS3 chip faster than Intel or AMD"
I'm not naive or ignorant about clock speeds. I could be misinformed. I based the statement on:
"Cell is said to run at clock speeds greater than 4 gigahertz, which would top the 3.8 GHz of Intels current top-speed chip."
Please paraphrase why Intel/AMD's chips are faster than Cell, that article is too long for me to read right now.
Thanks,
PT -
Originally posted by PolkThug
I'm not naive or ignorant about clock speeds. I could be misinformed. I based the statement on:
"Cell is said to run at clock speeds greater than 4 gigahertz, which would top the 3.8 GHz of Intels current top-speed chip."
Please paraphrase why Intel/AMD's chips are faster than Cell, that article is too long for me to read right now.
Thanks,
PT
a claim about *clock speeds* is very different than an unqualified statement that one chip is *faster* than another.
faster implies alot more than just clock speed. if you were playing a game on a 10GHz chip that gave you 10 frames per second and the same game on a different chip with clock speeds at 2GHz but gave you 60 frames per second. which one would you say is "faster"? the 2GHz chip of course.
plain and simple --> clock speed does not equal performance. -
and more semantics for you, but I always believed you could categorize someone who is "misinformed" as naive/ignorant on that subject. i don't mean any offense, just trying to clear up the "misinformation".
-
No, the 10GHz chip is "faster". The PC with the 2GHZ chip has a better video card.Originally posted by PhantomOG
if you were playing a game on a 10GHz chip that gave you 10 frames per second and the same game on a different chip with clock speeds at 2GHz but gave you 60 frames per second. which one would you say is "faster"? the 2GHz chip of course.plain and simple --> clock speed does not equal performance. [/B]
Tell me something I don't know. This is why I use AMD.
To judge performance, I would need benchmark testing.
I stand by my statement that the cell chip is faster.
-
Originally posted by PolkThug
No, the 10GHz chip is "faster". The PC with the 2GHZ chip has a better video card.
Tell me something I don't know. This is why I use AMD.
To judge performance, I would need benchmark testing.
I stand by my statement that the cell chip is faster.
i assumed you would see that i implied both systems had all other components equal except the processor. i guess that was too big of an assumption to make about you. :P
the clock speed of a processor has no real world value to an end user in and of itself. if you believe a poorly designed processor with a super high clock speed but poor IPC/real world performance is "faster" than a slower clocked processor with higher IPC and better performance across the board than your definition of "faster" is ridiculous.
if that truly is your definition of the word "faster", then i'll cease discussion of your claim since your interpretation of the english language is so very different than mine. -
Originally posted by PhantomOG
i assumed you would see that i implied both systems had all other components equal except the processor. i guess that was too big of an assumption to make about you. :P
I assumed that you would understand that faster = faster cycles, but I guess that was too big of an assumption to make about you. :P
the clock speed of a processor has no real world value to an end user in and of itself. if you believe a poorly designed processor with a super high clock speed but poor IPC/real world performance is "faster" than a slower clocked processor with higher IPC and better performance across the board than your definition of "faster" is ridiculous.
WHERE DID I MAKE A PERFORMANCE CLAIM??? To quote myself "To judge performance, I would need benchmark testing."
if that truly is your definition of the word "faster", then i'll cease discussion of your claim since your interpretation of the english language is so very different than mine.
I bow to thee, Master of Semantics. I will add one extra word to the thread topic headline:
"PS 3 chip cycles faster than Intel or AMD"
Now if you think that a chip/crystal/widget that cycles at a speed of 4GHz is slower than 3.8GHz, then your interpretation of the English language is so very different than mine.
Regards,
PolkThug
