Will the Next Microsoft Console Be Called Xbox Infinity?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Camikazi

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
745
0
18,930
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]I smell a law suit in the making... Xbox Infinity vs. Comcast Eyefinity . . . Definitely ! :)[/citation]
Mean Comcast Xfinity or AMD Eyefinity?
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]The PS3's cell processor resulting in bad ports for the first few years. Even games now still have issues (Skyrim). Xbox Live is generally better than PSN and party chat is a great feature that the PS3 doesn't have. It having better exclusives is personal opinion. Things like full achievement support from the start was another great thing Xbox 360 had. Personally I feel the Xbox 360 is the better console. I do use my PS3 for PS1/2 classics, few exclusives and a blu ray player though.[/citation]

The PS3 had better hardware. It was simply very difficult to code for optimally.
 

Shin-san

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
169
0
18,630
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Of course the Cell is not being used in new systems as much anymore. It's almost ten years old. However, for the longest time, some of the most powerful super computers were built off of it.[/citation]Only 1 in the Top 500, and it being almost ten years old isn't an excuse. x86 is far older. If the Cell architecture was that great, then it would be in the PS Vita.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The PS3 had better hardware. It was simply very difficult to code for optimally.[/citation]The PS3's CPU is more like taking a Pentium IV system and putting a really old and crippled nVidia Tesla unit into it. Sure it's got a lot of power, but how much of it is actually useful?
 

belardo

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2008
1,143
0
19,230
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]yea i dont believe that a single game ever sold more than 20 million on a console even when added together, even COD i doumt sold that well...[/citation] That is what makes a FACT different from a belief or an Opinion.

FACT: As of june 1, 2012, COD MW3 has sold 26.50 million units (360/PS3/Wii/DS) in 7months.
COD MW2 = 22.7million units (360/PS3).
 

belardo

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2008
1,143
0
19,230
@blazorthon : Selling expansion packs for WOW doesn't count as a full sale. WOW is still required. Other than WOW, no other PC game is close to consoles in sales.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]Only 1 in the Top 500, and it being almost ten years old isn't an excuse. x86 is far older. If the Cell architecture was that great, then it would be in the PS Vita.The PS3's CPU is more like taking a Pentium IV system and putting a really old and crippled nVidia Tesla unit into it. Sure it's got a lot of power, but how much of it is actually useful?[/citation]

... X86 is that old, but it's just a basic architecture, not an implementation of it's architecture such as the Cell which has the same performance that it had when it launched almost a decade ago. It's like complaining about a late P3's performance just because it doesn't perform like today's best processors. Of course it's getting phased out by now because it's no longer among the fastest processors.

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]@blazorthon : Selling expansion packs for WOW doesn't count as a full sale. WOW is still required. Other than WOW, no other PC game is close to consoles in sales.[/citation]

... They don't need to count for anything to you. They are still profit.
 

nitrium

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2009
77
0
18,610
I'm personally not a fan of that fourth syllable in Infinity. "Three Six-ty" was long enough. Just my opinion...
How about Xbox Infinite. That does actually sound better than "Infinity" imo.
 

Filiprino

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2008
40
0
18,580
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]What explanation do you have for the PS3 being used in servers and such, yet the Xbox 360 gets pretty much ignored here? The PS3's Cell CPU is far more powerful than you give it credit for.The problem with that is that unless consoles are much more similar to PCs in the future, the consoles would not be able to run the ports properly because they wouldn't have the performance for it unless they get specifically designed for porting, emulation, and such. Writing games for consoles and porting to PCs ensures that both industries will run the games, albeit the PCs won't run them as well as they have the full potential for (yet they still do it better than the consoles). A better solution would be to streamline porting and make the consoles more specialized for it and then port from PCs to consoles. The same is much less reasonable to do on the PCs because they are a much more diversified platform whereas the consoles are a single platform per generation.[/citation]
The Cell sucks for other than non-vectorial processing. The use of Cell for servers is marginal, the same with the old Xbox that was also used in clusters and the PS2. All those news are just advertising Sony's product.

The diversity on PC is not a problem. They all use the same operative system: Windows, and in the future, Linux. You can also use statically linked executables. Any problem or error is the user's fault.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
[citation][nom]Filiprino[/nom]The Cell sucks for other than non-vectorial processing. The use of Cell for servers is marginal, the same with the old Xbox that was also used in clusters and the PS2. All those news are just advertising Sony's product.The diversity on PC is not a problem. They all use the same operative system: Windows, and in the future, Linux. You can also use statically linked executables. Any problem or error is the user's fault.[/citation]

The Cell can suck for any other kind of processing... Simply use it for vector processing and it's great (for its time).

Even today, the PCs also have Linux and OSX as considerably prevalent operating systems, although I was referring to the hardware diversity, not the operating system and software diversity. A console needs to be almost perfectly optimized for, at least with the graphics. Having different GPUs and even worse, different GPU architectures, makes optimizing on the PC less efficient. Porting software hurts efficiency even more and to a greater degree at that and the severity is likely due to the difference in operating system/software/hardware between current consoles and current PCs.

If consoles went X86 and were specifically designed to be more port-friendly, then this would be much less of a problem. Do you really think that none of this is a problem? Imagine optimizing your software for the cache architecture of a Kepler GPU. Someone with a GCN GPU plays it and everything is much slower on a high end GCN based computer than even a mid-ranged Kepler based system because it doesn't have the cache architecture that the game was designed to be used on.

This problem is similar to the hardware diversity problem seen on Android. The GPUs are very weak, so they need to be highly optimized for, but different Droids can have vastly different GPUs.The hardware diversity is far worse than the Android version diversity.

Cell was used quite well in the server industry. There were several PS3 based super computers and/or servers. It doesn't need to be in every other server in order for it to be a strong competitor. Heck, even the military has a PS3 based super computer.
 

bigdog44

Honorable
Apr 6, 2012
29
0
10,580
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Really? Impressive to who 12-17 yr olds? My PC already drives circles around the next gen now not to mention how much it will a year from now since I upgrade every year with the top end hardware. Next gen on consoles isnt next gen. If developers would build games on the PC first then port to consoles life would be so much better in the gaming world.[/citation]

Opinions are one thing, but your post sounds like a statement of fact. Where are your facts? Are you stating that you have a rig that costs 5-10x what the next consoles will, and your upgrades will cost you the equivalent of a new console or more every year? Is that impressive?
How do you draw a comparison to the next consoles unless you're a descendant of Edgar Cayce?

 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
[citation][nom]bigdog44[/nom]Opinions are one thing, but your post sounds like a statement of fact. Where are your facts? Are you stating that you have a rig that costs 5-10x what the next consoles will, and your upgrades will cost you the equivalent of a new console or more every year? Is that impressive? How do you draw a comparison to the next consoles unless you're a descendant of Edgar Cayce?[/citation]

Soldier 37 brags about having two GTX 680 2GB cards and upgrading to two GTX 680 4GB cards and had two GTX 580 3GB cards prior to the GTX 680 2GB cards... If I remember correctly, there's also an i7 of some sort, among other expensive parts. You might be severely underestimating the costs of his/her computer, assuming that he/she isn't lying.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Soldier 37 brags about having two GTX 680 2GB cards and upgrading to two GTX 680 4GB cards and had two GTX 580 3GB cards prior to the GTX 680 2GB cards... If I remember correctly, there's also an i7 of some sort, among other expensive parts. You might be severely underestimating the costs of his/her computer, assuming that he/she isn't lying.[/citation]

soldier37, not Soldier 37. My bad.
 

Shin-san

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
169
0
18,630
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... X86 is that old, but it's just a basic architecture, not an implementation of it's architecture such as the Cell which has the same performance that it had when it launched almost a decade ago. It's like complaining about a late P3's performance just because it doesn't perform like today's best processors. Of course it's getting phased out by now because it's no longer among the fastest processors.... They don't need to count for anything to you. They are still profit.[/citation]The Cell is an architecture, and don't take my word for it: . The SPEs were designed to be scalable in number easily.

The one in the Roadrunner is actually an enhanced version of the one in the PS3. IBM, Toshiba, and Sony all lost interest in improving it. The Vita using ARM is a prime example of the lost interest.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The Cell can suck for any other kind of processing... Simply use it for vector processing and it's great (for its time).
...
Porting software hurts efficiency even more and to a greater degree at that and the severity is likely due to the difference in operating system/software/hardware between current consoles and current PCs.If consoles went X86 and were specifically designed to be more port-friendly, then this would be much less of a problem.
...
Heck, even the military has a PS3 based super computer.[/citation]There's two supercomputers, but how many more? Also, that's actually one of the problems with the PS3. Sony hinted that it's orders of magnitude faster than the Xbox 360, so people designed games for the Xbox 360 thinking porting wouldn't be a problem. It turns out that the 360 in quite a few cases was more powerful.

Also, the CPU being in a supercomputer doesn't mean much for video games. It shows that it makes a good supercomputer for those cases it was made for, but doesn't necessarily translate into video games. This is Tomshardware, and by being here, you should know about frame rate benchmarks and how they better show off performance compared to corporate PR
 

Dark Comet

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
96
0
18,590
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The PS3 had better hardware. It was simply very difficult to code for optimally.[/citation]

I'm not too sure GPU wise, but with CPU's it was a bad idea regardless of whether it's more powerful or not with all the issues the Cell Processor caused them. People paid good money for it, only to find most developers hardly used the full potential they paid for.
 

bigdog44

Honorable
Apr 6, 2012
29
0
10,580
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Soldier 37 brags about having two GTX 680 2GB cards and upgrading to two GTX 680 4GB cards and had two GTX 580 3GB cards prior to the GTX 680 2GB cards... If I remember correctly, there's also an i7 of some sort, among other expensive parts. You might be severely underestimating the costs of his/her computer, assuming that he/she isn't lying.[/citation]

I was going to make the point if he/she replied that the price/performance issue with regards to PCs is that they do their performance in alot of scenarios like a brute-force attack. Consoles, because of their design constraints have to do more with less.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]I'm not too sure GPU wise, but with CPU's it was a bad idea regardless of whether it's more powerful or not with all the issues the Cell Processor caused them. People paid good money for it, only to find most developers hardly used the full potential they paid for.[/citation]

I don't deny that it was a bad idea, but the problem isn't because the hardware is weaker, just incredibly hard to code for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.