Technology Of Current, Future Consoles Analyzed

ban25 writes "There's an interesting article at Ace's Hardware with an in-depth analysis of the technology behind the PS2, Xbox, and GameCube, plus hints to the future. It covers the CPUs and GPUs of each of the systems, and also has an interesting discussion about embedded DRAM and its role in consoles compared to the high-speed discrete memories found on all of today's top PC graphics cards. The other part of the article covers the next generation of systems and, in particular, the Xbox 2 and PS3. The recent IBM/MS agreement is discussed, as well as the chances of the Xbox 2 having a PowerPC inside, or perhaps even a CELL derivative. On the PS3 side of things, the piece goes into some detail about the patent that turned up last year on CELL."

Re:Why can't console makers

[GaimeGuy]

Uh, because there'd be pretty much no point in buyinig consoles if all the great console games were on the PC. Plus, it's not worth it to change the code for the PC, and then release it, when games don't sell nearly as well on the PC as they do on consoles. A title selling 700,000 on the PC is like a title selling a couple million on a console. It just isn't worth it to spend the resources to port console games to PC and give the consoles less value.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why can't console makers

[wed128]

Not to mention the price difference...$199 vs $2k

Re:Why can't console makers

[cgranade]

I find consoles much less limiting, since game makers can make assuptions about what's going on and just focus on the game. On a PS1/2/X, for example, everyone has a controller with four triggers, four shoulder buttons, two analogs (excepting early PS1s) and four directions, plus a start-select pair. No need to detect if there's a joystick or keyboard or what. Furthermore, all PS2s are equally compatible, so the game makers don't have to "scale down" graphics for less capable systems.
The end result? Less time spent on interface details and hardware detection, and more time spent making good games.

Re:Why can't console makers

[SuperMo0]

That's not what he was talking about. This is about a console game FIRST, such as Final Fantasy X or Metroid, being ported to PC. The ones you mentioned were PC games being ported to consoles, which happens all the time. Not EVERYONE has computers powerful enough to run all these neat new games, including myself, so there's a market in getting people to get them on a console when they couldn't otherwise play it.

Re:Why can't console makers

[SuperMo0]

OK, maybe they're not all COMPATIBLE, but they all have the same processor speed and shit. Try running UT2003 on a Pentium II with 400 mHz of speed (which isn't all that old, really).

Re:Why can't console makers

[gl4ss]

..and that's where it's heading already quite fast, doing almost everything on high level languages and through libraries provided by hw maker, so there's less and less lowlevel freaking with newer consoles and going to be even less with the coming crop of new consoles. so basically what this ends up in if you're smart when doing the design decisions is that you don't lose anything by going with doing the game so that it will be very easy to port.

however, as artificial limitations on where you release the game have already shown up i don't think they'll ever release all the games on all the systems(even if porting it was just one day effort by one guy). many current games come now though with release for all ps2,xbox,gc and pc(with these games the marketing seems to be the biggest budget hurdle though, so it makes only sense to sell it for every system at the same time).

Re:Why can't console makers

[Anonymous Coward]

On a PS1/2/X, for example, everyone has a controller with four triggers, four shoulder buttons, two analogs (excepting early PS1s) and four directions, plus a start-select pair. No need to detect if there's a joystick or keyboard or what.

On a PC, people have the freedom to choose whatever style of controller they want, instead of being limited to what the console designers liked. DirectInput abstracts away most hardware differences, so all game designers need to do is provide an interface for controller configuration.

Furthermore, all PS2s are equally compatible, so the game makers don't have to "scale down" graphics for less capable systems.

All PS2s are equally limited, so the game makers are unable to "scale up" graphics for more capable systems. It cuts both ways.

The only thing consoles have that PCs don't is a wide variety of games. Which takes us back to the original poster's point. PCs have FPSes that make most current console games look crap. But FPSes account for the vast majority of "good" PC games. Unreal this, Doom that, Deus Whatever. If only game publishers would release all their titles on the PC, they could experience the freedom of programming to the API instead of the hardware, and we could experience some really innovative gaming.

Evolution? Nay! Revolution!

[Peoii]

There's the same ol' same ol' in most of those.... They point at "more power", well duh. Of course systems are going to get more and more powerful, otherwise I'd wait for things to come out still on my good ol' Atari 2600.

What we really need is a revolution in gaming technology for the console. Something that provides a new level of interactivity, be it from a 3D projection, to a Virtual Helmet set. ANYTHING would be an improvement over the joystick games of current. I mean look at it this way, we've had the same type of games coming out for years now, nothing new, nothing challenging as far as pushing the limits of what we can do. Why not give the home console gamer something they'll be addicted to? Perhaps an interactive environment where we're pumping sensations to them that they actually FEEL, SMELL or even TASTE. To long has the gaming world been in our rumble packs, ears, and eyes, something has to push forward, and I just wonder when the gaming companies will notice that.