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?

"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!

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.

“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.

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

> 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 🙂.

I love posts and info like this, it just reads like s*x feels.

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).

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...

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

AHHHhhhh river raid....back when games lasted more than 10mins....lol only joking but my personal fav was spaceharrier

i think i still have river raid cart. Or maybe it's sea quest

Looks like more Nvidia marketing BS. PS2 100x more powerful than the top end PC at the time. If that's the case I'm Batman and Mr Jen is Robin. Well I love GeForce, but Nvidia marketing really can be soooo dramatic sometimes and far fetched. I get what he means though, just he really should have said it differently. PS2 rivaled the PC at the time, but I wouldn't have said 100x faster. It also didn't take long for PC to surpass it indefinitely. While I do agree that one day consoles may merge into one unit with 1st party publishers each having a share on it, I just don't see it until another gen or two away. Internet capabilities have to catch up first. If they really want Disk Free media, a merged console would be best for that. Not enough people have the internet capacity to do that with all the dumb caps they throw out, and the average user never sees above 3-5 meg lines.

Looks like more Nvidia marketing BS. PS2 100x more powerful than the top end PC at the time. If that's the case I'm Batman and Mr Jen is Robin. Well I love GeForce, but Nvidia marketing really can be soooo dramatic sometimes and far fetched. I get what he means though, just he really should have said it differently. PS2 rivaled the PC at the time, but I wouldn't have said 100x faster. It also didn't take long for PC to surpass it indefinitely. While I do agree that one day consoles may merge into one unit with 1st party publishers each having a share on it, I just don't see it until another gen or two away. Internet capabilities have to catch up first. If they really want Disk Free media, a merged console would be best for that. Not enough people have the internet capacity to do that with all the dumb caps they throw out, and the average user never sees above 3-5 meg lines.

Agree with it all but would like to add that imo, console tech in general needs to catch up. We've got 4k tvs on the way and just like the current batch of consoles with 1080p, theres no way that next gens are going to pump out that resolution or even 1080p at 60fps, which again imo should be the standard now. In NZ atleast, 1080p is far from standard. The only real 1080 you get is in blu-ray and not even 10% of tv programs shown here are 720p. We live in would where either the hardware is to far ahead and content is to exspensive to make in order for it to be the standard or the hardware is lacking and we're trying to play games that are just to graphically intense for the hardware to keep up. Im not interested in stale tech, the world has trouble getting up off its arse enough as it is and im buggered if im going to spend my hard earned cash on something that is on release day, old tech and way behind current pc hardware. This stuff is all computers and super fast calculations, but my humans eyes are in sick of squinting and waiting for the friggin frame refresh. ME3 @ 20~fps on consoles --- That shoulda been illegal. The PC is constantly improving, devs wouldint have to go on about 'oh we had to cut this an that and drop details here and there in order to keep the frames up', sorry but what!!!. I reckon if devs all started and got back to the pc the cost pc hardware would drop in price could it not? eg: more people buying gpus= lower prices. Devs could partner up with AMD or Nvidia and in return get when theres a new major release, game company A could ship their games with a price discount on the latest gpu/cpu or hell even ram.