Guru3D Thermal Paste Roundup 2019
Back-to-school Microsoft Office 2016 $18 Win 10 Pro $12
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 1TB SSD Review
Corsair K57 RGB Wireless keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
NVIDIA: Era of fully-custom console hardware is over
NVIDIA Ceo Jen-Hsun Huang states that that fully-custom hardware for video game consoles is no longer feasible. Huang explains that with the power delivered by today's CPUs and GPUs, it no longer makes sense to spend lots of money into the development of custom processors with odd architectures, such as the Cell chip developed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM. He adds that it's much easier to use off-the-sheld hardware, and proclaims the age of exclusive game console hardware is over as everything will be based on common architectures.
“You cannot make a game console such as the PlayStation 2 anymore. When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC. I wonder whether it is possible to make something 100 times powerful than GeForce GTX 680? If possible, Nvidia will make it,” said Jen-Hsun Huang in an interview with PC Watch web-site.
Mr. Huang is in many ways correct. The forthcoming Microsoft Xbox Next and Sony PlayStation 4 are based on custom chips heavily rely on PC architecture and technologies developed by Advanced Micro Devices. Even PlayStation Vita features system-on-chip with ARM Cortex-A9 general-purpose cores and PowerVR SGX 5XT series graphics. Not surprisingly that Nvidia designed its own game console around Tegra 4 application processor, which will power numerous tablets and smartphones this year.
NVIDIA: Project Denver is ARMv8 with added secret sauce - 11/12/2012 09:59 AM
In a conference call last week with financial analysts, NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang revealed that the company's Project Denver, aka NVIDIA's upcoming desktop processor, is a full-custom ARMv8 archite...
NVIDIA: 30 Tegra 3 smartphones coming - 05/27/2012 10:41 AM
NVIDIA released information that there are 30 Tegra 3 based smartphones on the way in 2012, double as much as the Tegra 2's design wins. NVIDIA GM Mike Rayfield also added that many of these phones wi...
NVIDIA: 28nm yields not as good as anticipated - 02/17/2012 01:08 PM
NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang told investors during yesterday's earnings call that TSMC is doing fabulously with its 28nm ramp. Yields on 28nm wafers are higher at the same point in the cycle than they we...
Nvidia: We Expected More from the Radeon HD 7900 Series - 01/25/2012 01:43 PM
Okay .. Awkward .. Now AMD had a pretty good launch with the Radeon HD 7970, NVIDIA however isn
NVIDIA: Tegra 3more performance less power consumption - 08/17/2011 10:18 AM
NVIDIA's that Kal El (Tegra 3) will not only offer more performance than Tegra 2 but also a lower power consumption as X-bit Labs reported today. Nvidia Corp.'s next-generation code-named Kal El syste...
HonoredShadow
Senior Member
Posts: 4266
Joined: 2007-05-27
Senior Member
Posts: 4266
Joined: 2007-05-27
#4504155 Posted on: 01/18/2013 06:44 PM
"He adds that it's much easier to use off-the-sheld hardware"?
I see what you did there Hilbert
Looks like Shield to me!
"He adds that it's much easier to use off-the-sheld hardware"?
I see what you did there Hilbert
Looks like Shield to me!
scoter man1
Senior Member
Posts: 4706
Joined: 2008-12-09
Senior Member
Posts: 4706
Joined: 2008-12-09
#4504206 Posted on: 01/18/2013 07:38 PM
So what if it isnt "100 times" more powerful. It's still MORE POWERFUL, and in modern terms, even if its "twice" as powerful, that's huge if they are already powerful.
So what if it isnt "100 times" more powerful. It's still MORE POWERFUL, and in modern terms, even if its "twice" as powerful, that's huge if they are already powerful.
Veeshush
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2010-11-28
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2010-11-28
#4504218 Posted on: 01/18/2013 07:53 PM
At least now I'll finally be able to understand gaming architecture. I have to admit they really came up with some interesting complex stuff over the years, like the Super FX in SNES.
“You cannot make a game console such as the PlayStation 2 anymore. When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC. I wonder whether it is possible to make something 100 times powerful than GeForce GTX 680? If possible, Nvidia will make it,” said Jen-Hsun Huang in an interview with PC Watch web-site.
At least now I'll finally be able to understand gaming architecture. I have to admit they really came up with some interesting complex stuff over the years, like the Super FX in SNES.
Sash
Senior Member
Posts: 6963
Joined: 2004-04-25
Senior Member
Posts: 6963
Joined: 2004-04-25
#4504343 Posted on: 01/18/2013 10:13 PM
Jen-Hsun Huang: "You don't need to buy consoles, no other company can make a better console than ours because it has GeForce marketing inside it, DUUUURRR so buy our console instead! DEERP
Jen-Hsun Huang: "You don't need to buy consoles, no other company can make a better console than ours because it has GeForce marketing inside it, DUUUURRR so buy our console instead! DEERP
EJocys
Senior Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 2003-07-08
Senior Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 2003-07-08
#4504346 Posted on: 01/18/2013 10:16 PM
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only
.
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only
.
(.)(.)
Senior Member
Posts: 9094
Joined: 2010-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 9094
Joined: 2010-11-10
#4504393 Posted on: 01/18/2013 11:10 PM
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only.
I love posts and info like this, it just reads like s*x feels.
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only
.
I love posts and info like this, it just reads like s*x feels.
BigBlockTowncar
Senior Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: 2006-11-23
Senior Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: 2006-11-23
#4504410 Posted on: 01/18/2013 11:28 PM
How fast was the PS2? It was a 300mhz CPU according to the wiki specs. 32mb graphics.
I remember PS2 graphics as good for the time, but jagged and aliased when compared to the PC.
Soldier of Fortune, Deux Ex, Max Payne all came out around that time and looked pretty good on PC. I don't really remember any graphics hogs from back then. I don't even recall the first game I had FPS issues with back then (on my TNT2 32mb).
How fast was the PS2? It was a 300mhz CPU according to the wiki specs. 32mb graphics.
I remember PS2 graphics as good for the time, but jagged and aliased when compared to the PC.
Soldier of Fortune, Deux Ex, Max Payne all came out around that time and looked pretty good on PC. I don't really remember any graphics hogs from back then. I don't even recall the first game I had FPS issues with back then (on my TNT2 32mb).
HonoredShadow
Senior Member
Posts: 4266
Joined: 2007-05-27
Senior Member
Posts: 4266
Joined: 2007-05-27
#4504419 Posted on: 01/18/2013 11:35 PM
God I know what you mean. That made me smile. Will make alot of us smile
When you go out of your way in a day to find stuff written just like that to find out...
I love posts and info like this, it just reads like s*x feels.
God I know what you mean. That made me smile. Will make alot of us smile
When you go out of your way in a day to find stuff written just like that to find out...
Sharky
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2013-01-07
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2013-01-07
#4504522 Posted on: 01/19/2013 01:59 AM
I see consoles becoming obsolete soon considering how fast mobile graphics is progressing each year, unless consoles are produced faster we'll be seeing phones/tablets with better hardware.
I see consoles becoming obsolete soon considering how fast mobile graphics is progressing each year, unless consoles are produced faster we'll be seeing phones/tablets with better hardware.
lmimmfn
Senior Member
Posts: 10349
Joined: 2006-03-21
Senior Member
Posts: 10349
Joined: 2006-03-21
#4504538 Posted on: 01/19/2013 02:37 AM
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only.
while i dont know the numbers, i will agree the PS2 was no great shakes when it was released and i know stuff on my mates PC looked better, again though console hardware means hitting the metal so they could get a lot more out of it than on the PC with even better specs.
It would be nice if Sony used Linux and PC gamers could play the Sony releases offline or something, lol, wishful thinking.
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only
.
while i dont know the numbers, i will agree the PS2 was no great shakes when it was released and i know stuff on my mates PC looked better, again though console hardware means hitting the metal so they could get a lot more out of it than on the PC with even better specs.
It would be nice if Sony used Linux and PC gamers could play the Sony releases offline or something, lol, wishful thinking.
Solid_State
Senior Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 2011-10-18
Senior Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 2011-10-18
#4504587 Posted on: 01/19/2013 03:56 AM
Can't track it down but at CES Jen-Hsun Huang muttered out the comment GRID could run on current Xbox360. I thought that was funny.
Can't track it down but at CES Jen-Hsun Huang muttered out the comment GRID could run on current Xbox360. I thought that was funny.
F1refly
Senior Member
Posts: 9042
Joined: 2004-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 9042
Joined: 2004-07-31
#4504596 Posted on: 01/19/2013 04:24 AM
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only.
Specs only offer what is theoretically possible. It never translates into real world usage, For their time, systems like Dreamcast and PS2 pushed poly's and textures beyond what was being offered on PC's. It took much more powerful hardware on the PC side to achieve that level.
For it's initial release, gaming, for actual real world, sit your ass down and game...the PS2 did what the PC wasn't...when it did, it required you to buy new hardware, then more new hardware ....even though consoles start lagging behind after a couple years, they keep up pretty well thanks to developers pushing the given specs, something that doesn't translate too well when trying to push the PC due to overwhelming of configs.
Furthermore, i don't care if a PC is 10000x's more powerful, does no good if a developer doesn't make use of that power.
Numbers on paper don't mean jack when it comes to playing games.
> When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC.
I call BS on this. PS2 was over-hyped and hype was based on numbers which were useless in games. Apple used similar floating point computation PR scam for Mac Pro to claim superiority over PC and supercomputers in 2008. PS2 had 16 pipelines at 147 Mhz = 2352 Mpixel/s. But this is only for pixels with no textures. Speed dropped to 1175 Mpixel/s with one texture and just to 586 Mpixels/s with two textures.
GeForce2 had 4 pipelines at 250 Mgz = 1.000 Mpixel/s and had ability to add up to two textures at the same speed. Basically PS2 was only 18% faster than GF2 if all pixels in game had only one texture. PS2 was performance king in games like Pong only
.
Specs only offer what is theoretically possible. It never translates into real world usage, For their time, systems like Dreamcast and PS2 pushed poly's and textures beyond what was being offered on PC's. It took much more powerful hardware on the PC side to achieve that level.
For it's initial release, gaming, for actual real world, sit your ass down and game...the PS2 did what the PC wasn't...when it did, it required you to buy new hardware, then more new hardware ....even though consoles start lagging behind after a couple years, they keep up pretty well thanks to developers pushing the given specs, something that doesn't translate too well when trying to push the PC due to overwhelming of configs.
Furthermore, i don't care if a PC is 10000x's more powerful, does no good if a developer doesn't make use of that power.
Numbers on paper don't mean jack when it comes to playing games.
smashly
Senior Member
Posts: 988
Joined: 2008-04-04
Senior Member
Posts: 988
Joined: 2008-04-04
#4504629 Posted on: 01/19/2013 05:51 AM
This thread was good read.
Ahh well back to playing River Raid snd Missile Command on my Atari 2600 console for now.
That's more then enough graphics oomph for my needs ftm
This thread was good read.
Ahh well back to playing River Raid snd Missile Command on my Atari 2600 console for now.
That's more then enough graphics oomph for my needs ftm
The Goose
Senior Member
Posts: 2227
Joined: 2008-02-25
Senior Member
Posts: 2227
Joined: 2008-02-25
#4504670 Posted on: 01/19/2013 08:08 AM
This thread was good read.
Ahh well back to playing River Raid snd Missile Command on my Atari 2600 console for now.
That's more then enough graphics oomph for my needs ftm
AHHHhhhh river raid....back when games lasted more than 10mins....lol only joking but my personal fav was spaceharrier
This thread was good read.
Ahh well back to playing River Raid snd Missile Command on my Atari 2600 console for now.
That's more then enough graphics oomph for my needs ftm
AHHHhhhh river raid....back when games lasted more than 10mins....lol only joking but my personal fav was spaceharrier
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Posts: 7604
Joined: 2012-07-10
Incredible so it is, folks are still getting excited over ps4 + xbox720, we know where it's at though thanks to folks like you, HH.
Crysis3 + x2 680s /7970s right?