Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

does the ps3 have an MMU?

i can;t found doncs about it and it isn't mentioned here

All new images

See them [1]. Do you think this should be an External link? • Thorpe • 11:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 FAQ at IGN link

Here is a link to the 4 page PlayStation 3 FAQ at IGN written 7/26/05. I put it here cause I saw this:

<!-- ========================================================= -->
<!-- DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS, THIS SITE IS NOT A LINK DEPOSITORY -->
<!--       If you have a link that you want added please       -->
<!--        use the talk page before you post anything.        -->
<!-- ========================================================= -->

-Hyad 05:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

A lot of detailed information on squeezed onto a few pages. I think it should be put in. • Thorpe • 10:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for being considerate and posting here first. I really don't care either way, but I don't really think the link says anything that the articles and other links don't already. We could definitely stand to have some link consolodation, and this IGN one is preferable to some of the others currently there. -- uberpenguin 00:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Will MEMORY CARDS be compatible with PS2's?

I have lots of games currently saved on PS 2 cards. Will the PS 3 accept these older cards? This will ultimately be the deciding factor on my buying the PS 3 so I really need to know.

According to PSM magazine, in an interview with Sony, PlayStation and PlayStation 2 memory cards will NOT work on PlayStation 3. [2] Havok 19:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There might be some kind of USb adapter for them. I know things like that exist. --HQ 10:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a USB device called a MaxDrive (formerly DexDrive?) which allows you to transfer PS2 saves to a computer, for backup purposes. Someone will probably write a program to convert those computerised saves into PS3 format, so then you could just transfer them to a memory stick to use with PS3... --Wulf 03:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

8 SPE's

"Each chip includes 8 SPEs, but one is disabled to improve yields and reduce costs"... could that be expanded on? I assume they carefully choose which SPE to disable based on malfunctioning/underperforming; through that they get higher yields. Perhaps when/how/who made that decision, and what is the failure rate of SPE's (although I know that's likely unknown)... and maybe it could lose the bold, and just be a normal sentence/paragraph with punctuation. - RoyBoy 800 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much all that is known is summed up in that sentence. It's known that the processors are made with one unused SPE so that they can still be used if there is a serious flaw in one of the 8, that one can be disabled without any functionality or manufacturing loss. You can remove the bolding if you like, it is definitely unnecessary. -- uberpenguin 13:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Simultaneous Launch

"Reports quoting high-ranking Sony officials" is kinda vague, if those reports quote unnamed officials rather than Sony announcing it outright then it's probable that Sony's only implying a simultaneous as a business strategy. They suggest that the PS3 will be available in North America just six months after the Xbox 360, people might believe it and hold off. Then when it doesn't come out, Sony's had time to build more hype and also note that they never announced a Spring 2006 release for North America. So they get the effect of an official announcement without the responsibility to uphold their word. I don't know, I guess I jsut don't agree with the wording and had to share my thoughts.

Why would they hold off if the Xbox 360 was any way near as good? The X-box had a quite short life, maybe people do not mind playing it a few months longer. A global launch usually has at least days between different areas. Further information still has to be revealed. ShotokanTuning 09:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

External Link...

Hello,

I am the webmaster of the original 'Playstation 3 Resource Centre', setup back in October 2001. I have provided information, news alerts, forums, polls and images for my users for some years now. The site is unbiased and contains useful and relevant resources for those interested in Playstation 3. Before the 'Playstation 3' article was protected, I placed a link to my website in the external links section, I now see it has been removed. Could someone please re-consider my website for addition to this excellent resource.

Kindest Regards

Craig Hughes Playstation 3 Resource Centre

http://home.btconnect.com/hgi/ps3

Although your website is very well done and has accurate and frequently updated news, this isn't the purpose of wikipedia. The links section should be used to link original content that is directly relevant to the article. As your website is a collection of links to other news sources, there is no original content, interviews or information that could not be found elsewhere. If you do have original content or information to add to the wikipedia, please feel free to update the PS3 page once it is unlocked. Thank you for taking the time to post. --Thax 18:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Another external link

I wrote up a humorous piece about Playstation 3s on my blog and thought I'd share a smile with people who are following up to date developments. It's here:


Playstation 3 humor piece 12/17/2005


Realberserker 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While this is funny, IMO, it does not add anything factually relevant to the encyclopedia article. It is a humorous and fictitious parody of a news story. Given the way that it is presented and that it was linked to by Wikipedia, many people might think it to be true. Also, the link provided is not anchored, nor does it go to an archived copy. This means that it won't be relevant in as little as a few weeks. Linking to your own blog is frowned upon as it is oft enseen as self-promotion and advertising. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not only frowned upon, it's technically against WP guidelines (see Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to #2). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 01:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm working on learning to permalink, and I'll switch it over to that after I update the blog accordingly. And, it's pretty clearly labeled as a parody here, so thanks again for the frown. Realberserker 14:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Permalink added. Realberserker 05:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Another external link

I have this article to contribute that discusses the upcoming console war between Xbox and PS3. The Ivory TreeWhat does math say about the upcoming console war

Minor Problem

Recently Purchased company to help with the API:

punctuation problems


Please, change link linuxhdd in References to

# ↑  "Add-on PlayStation 3 HDD will run Linux", June 9, 2005.

no Google caching is needed more. (I was User:194.85.82.121, when this link was deleted)

Edit Protection

1. When was this page vandalized? I think it has been atleast a week now...

2. When will this page be un-edit protected?

3. Why can't I find this page on the list of edit protected pages?


Thanks,

--Wulf 03:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Could it be that the protectifying of the page was the vandalism... thereby justifying itself? O_o MrD 21:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Or you could look at the edit history of the page... and there is also WP:RFPP for things like this to get it unprotected =) anyways, I'm back from my vacation so I'll uinprotect now (vandal is probably gone by now). Sasquatcht|c 02:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'm on the brink of asking that the article be protected again. There has hardly been a single useful (that is, non-vandalistic or nonsensical) edit since it was unprotected. -- uberpenguin 03:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Crickey this page is like a giant vandal magnet! Good thing Everyking protected again... Sasquatcht|c 18:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

At least one of the recent vandalism sources would be GameFAQ's "users" - http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=213&topic=23192491 (May need a GameFAQ's account, I don't know) was posted last night. Could be worth contacting him with the IP addresses of people concerned, to see if he's interested in doing anything - Tohya

Thanks Tohya for ratting out your fellow Gamefaq users ;).Amren (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Even more merit for banning children from the interweb. -- uberpenguin 22:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
LOL, good point. Amren (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
lol, I read this page almost every day, and I have not seen any vandalism. You guys must be doing a good job :) --Wulf 03:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's been over 24 hours so I unprotected it. Hopefully they don't start up again. Everyking 05:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Storage

DualDisc, DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side)
DualDisc is compatible with all CD/DVD devices and not need exclusive compability with it. --Mateusc 05:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

PS3 non-operational at E3?!

This is to question the statement that the PS3 "was in non-operational form at E3". Where is the source of that? I believe that should be further looked into. I believe that is WAS operating part-time at E3, and there have been rumors that when it was doing demos, the prototype was using an inferior chip running at 2.4GHz instead of the RSX chip's proper speed of 3.2GHz.

see [[3]]

Was shown demos and videos, but it's completely closer and non-operational and playable at E3. --Mateusc 13:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

At least we can be sure [most of] the TGS footage was rendered on the Cell (although not the final RSX...) :) --Wulf 19:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The referenced article isn't suitable as a source of information. It's a short blurb that re-reports an article on another (unlinked) website whose sources are also unnamed. In other words, without any reputable source (like Sony), this really can't be treated as anything but rumour. I don't personally care much about the various rumours that make their way around regarding high-profile product launches like this one, but I just wanted to note that this article alone shouldn't be viewed as a valid source of information as far as the WP article is concerned. -- uberpenguin 02:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Killzone movie is completely pre-rendered CG, and the highly anticipated Final Fantasy VII Tech Demo is also pre-rendered CG, which is clearly stated by Square Enix as "a projection of what the graphics would be like on PS3."

I wouldn't say 'completely'. If they made it in Maya or 3D Studio Max or Lightwave 3D, you might have an argment, but not as is. Please read the Killzone 3 article for a thorough explanation. Oh, and please sign your comments, like so:the1physicist 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You are really stretching. "Real time" and "Pre-rendered" are two complement terms in CG. The fact that it's not done in "real-time" qualifies it as "pre-rendered." It wouldn't matter what engine or hardware is doing the rendering, if it doesn't render in "reasonable real-time" frame rate, then it's "pre-rendered." To complete the argument, GT4 has photo mode, it's rendering using the game engine, but that is still "pre-rendered" and not "real-time." On the other hand, the MGS4 trailer is in "real-time" because Kojima san can "control" the trailer just like a game. BTW, I don't sign my edits.

Inquirer Article is wrong

"... nVidia spokesperson was quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800. So says Evil Avatar, having seen the magazine.* " http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25838

Scan of magazine article in question: http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/5135/psm23vg.jpg

"There's no doubting that NVIDIA's new 7800GTX is the ultimate in PC graphics technology. The card's G70 GPU, which is more than twice as powerful as two of NVIDIA's previous top-of-the-line 6800 boards, shares a lot of similar inner workings with the PS3's RSX chip, only it isn't as fast. Oh, and it retails for $599."

Evil Avatar misinterpreted what it meant, here is what the article actually means:

"There's no doubting that NVIDIA's new 7800GTX is the ultimate in PC graphics technology. The PC graphics card's G70 GPU, which is more than twice as powerful as two of NVIDIA's previous top-of-the-line 6800 boards, shares a lot of similar inner workings with the PS3's RSX chip, only the PC graphics card isn't as fast. Oh, and the PC graphics card retails for $599."

All other articles are based on this one wrong article.

--Thax 18:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. Oh, what an unclear antecedent can do! ;) Amren (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me the most is that the Inquirer hasn't retracted or updated the article, this article continues to spawn more articles on other sites. Thanks for contacting me about this whole thing. :) --Thax 17:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually to clarify the Inquirer did retract its statement including the fact that its not our fault we place the blame on Evil Avatar. We are not responsible and highly offended. Only problem is Evil Avatar is a web forum and the Inquirer posted this as news and sited some random guys posts on an internet forum. They didnt even bother to read the full thread that later proved that the whole thing was messed up. Xbox 360 sites of course jumped all over it after the Inquirer posted it. One big mess.
Yes, I looked around and found that the Inquirer did in fact post an retraction article, however the original article still remains unaltered on the Inquirer site with no disclaimer or change on the page. http://theinquirer.net/?article=25838 Unfortunately it is easier to simply hotlink to the unchanged article, people don't normally search around to look for an article retraction. In addition the article has been updated since, by adding a hyperlink update to the page. This would make it appear that the page is updated as required, and any retractions would also be linked or added to the bottom of the article in question without altering it's original content. --Thax 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You should note that the actual graphics chips is not very expensive. The memory, PCB and everything else makes it expensive. Add to that the salaries of the people the sale of the card contributes to. And that when the machine is released, the technology will be mature and yields should be optimal. NeOak 03:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Creative Soundblaster X-Fi

I have heard rumours that the PS3 will use the new Soundblaster X-Fi card, due out Fall 2005... Including Creative themselves saying "Expect to see X-Fi in everything from game consoles to..."

Anybody care to either shoot this down, or confirm it?

--Wulf 05:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sony will use simply 5.1 Dolby Digital solution.
Please sign your posts on talk pages :) Also, could you please state your source? --Wulf 04:30, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
The source is official press release and Cell processor docs. Sony will never use third party sound solution. --Mateusc 12:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't really put much truth in it, given that Sony has always been against using 3rd party soundcards... Thanks for shootin' that down :) --Wulf 19:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Controller

Could someone please QUICKLY update the info on PS3 controller. A revised design of the controller has been released for quite some time. Check out this Gamespot link

That is not a new design... It is the PS3 controller which this article has been displaying since E3. It simply does not look as large, when compared to a human hand. --Wulf 03:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The final controller design has not been shown yet they have made clear its still being tinkered with.

Would the ps2's controller fit into the slot of the ps3's slot and work?

Release Date

Why has the release date been changed from Spring 2006 to Fall 2006 (by Xizer)?
As far as I know, the correct release date is Spring 2006... As verified by Sony chairman and CEO Howard Stringer. --Wulf 03:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's spring so far, but people have been speculating Sony will wait till fall. Amren (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I assumed as much, but just wanted to double-check over here on the talk page. I see User:151.203.219.193 has already fixed it :) --Wulf 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The release date has been changed to April 29th. Can we verify that this is this official?the1physicist 07:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sony is backtracking on the release date. Before they said Spring 2006. Now on their CES web site they can only say 2006. http://www.sony.com/ces/playstation.shtml Everyone with history in this field know this means they have a bit of trouble making their original Spring commitment. They are trying hard to release it by the end of May in Japan, but aren't sure. This would qualify to them as Spring or Q2 release to biz folks. Daniel.Cardenas 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ps3 Tech Spec

sorry about this but... you know i wanna know what 7th gen is better ps3 tech spec , revo tech spec or xbo360 stech spec i heard ps3 tech spec was the most powerful

See my comments in the The teraflops have to be wrong... section on this talk page. Nobody can say yet, "better" is a subjective term, and anybody that tells you otherwise either has an agenda, is a marketing-eating fanboy, or just blindly believes whatever they read on the Interweb. -- uberpenguin 02:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually better isnt completely subjective you can hardly say that a Pentium 1 is more powerful than a Pentium 4. Overall, the PS3 and 360 are around the same level of power. Nintendo has openly admited a less powerful more affordable console so its safe to say that Revolution will be the least powerful as Nintendo has the least reason to openly admit that.

How is Pentuim 1 more powerful than 4? The higher it goes, the more powerful it is! >x<ino 08:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for negative comments like that. If "better" is completely subjective that would mean that you could argue that the Pentium 1 is better than a pentium 4. The point is that Pentium 1 is NOT better and its only subjective when you are comparing consoles and/or PCs of similar strength.
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Try using a ~100 W dissipating Pentium 4 in a low-power application that has to survive extreme heat conditions. A prime example of this is how hard one team that used P7s in their entry for the DARPA Grand Challenge had to work to provide adequate cooling for their system, while some other teams opted for less general-purpose and "slower" CPUs because of their comparative high resilliance to the conditions. For low power systems, a Pentium (or ARM7 or MIPS32, etc) might very well be "better" than a P7 for the application due to their power dissipations in the MILLIWATT range. Another example: Intel has indicated for a while now that they are more or less dumping the P7 (NetBurst) in favor of an updated P6 architecture for their newer desktop and mobile chips. This is already playing out in the various Pentium M branded cores, which are basically P6 designs with a more NetBurst-like bus interface. The P6 architecture was introduced in 1995 with the Pentium Pro and had its last major architectural developments before Banias (Pentium M) with the Coppermine (Pentium III). Is the P7/Netburst/Pentium 4 architecture automatically "better" than the older P6? In some ways yes, but it has turned out that even Intel has decided that the benefits of TLP and a more P6-like design outweigh those of the deeper-pipelined P7.
"Better" when comparing microarchitecture is always subjective or subject to qualification, "better" when talking about implementation is almost always subjective. Cell is not nearly as unique as a lot of people seem to believe it is; and more powerful stream processors than Cell certainly exist. However, Sony has decided that the price/performance/design/power point that Cell affords makes it the "best" choice for the PlayStation 3. -- uberpenguin 15:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Japanese developers

The PS3 is getting massive support from Japanese developers and I added in some rpgs to the games in development section. Heres the big list of them all. http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/brothersinarms3/news_6133515.html

CPU to GPU bandwidth

Both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 support reading and writing between the CPU and the GPU at the exact same time. Xbox 360 has a 10.8GB/s connect that runs both ways at the same time. The PS3 runs a 20/15 split. Normally you can only communicate with one bandwidth a time making it so you cant add them, however when the PC/console is capable of using both at once they can be added. Its called an aggregated bandwidth, just in the case of the PS3 its lopsided.

You could update this article on PlayStation 3 with these info

1. PS3 was the winner of the E3 2005 Best Peripheral / Hardware Award. (I dont think its there in the article but it should be)

2. Keyboard/ mouse support in games in addition to the PS3 controller ( http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25858 )

3. PS3 can possibly act as a server, terminal, switch and hub ( http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=10033 )

I think it's somewhat pointless to mention the first and second... Any device with a full fledged IP stack can act as either a server or client in various capacities. -- uberpenguin 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The router/house-server functions had been removed by price questions, confirmed by Kaz Hirai few months ago, but the number of Ethernet ports continues. --Mateusc 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Keyboard, mouse, printer, scanner and other USB peripheral support will be available through Linux OS via the 6 USB ports in PlayStation 3. (I dont have a proof for this, but this is logical given that PS3 can act as a PC and has 6 USB ports).

Okay, but the use of these USB ports must be given exactly at the moment of the games: Heaset, Eyetoy, linkcable, keyboard and mouse.

5. Comparison table showing performance figures for PS3 GPU, Xbox 360 GPU and G70 (http://www.hardspell.com/newsimage/2005-6-21-16-10-14-654986702.gif)

I can't read Japanese, and I have no idea as to the credibility of this source... Best to leave it out, especially considering these comparisons are based on theoretical figures released by companies with vested interest that are subject to doctoring anyway. -- uberpenguin 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Speculative nature. --Mateusc 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Microsoft claims Xbox 360 has 5X times the memory bandwidth of PS3. But this is a misleading marketing hype. This link carries out an unbiased apples to apples comparison of memory bandwidth: http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/article.asp?SCID=28&CIID=23155&p=7

First, this blurb is in reference to a press release Microsoft made several months ago that has already been addressed in much more detail and elegance by much more credible computer-related sites. Second, the author's knowledge on the subject seems a bit dodgy. Third, and most importantly, it isn't Wikipedia's job to present a point-by-point analysis of all the various marketing claims competitors make about their products and how various interests defend or refute said points. -- uberpenguin 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Sony and Microsoft is making marketing and fighting with numbers currently. Disconsider, please.

7. You could add this quote somewhere:

"We're looking at a life cycle of 10 years with the PlayStation 3. We're currently shifting from standard TVs to HD TVs," said Kutaragi. "But in the next couple of years, most flat-panel TVs will be full HD. We're releasing the PS3 with full HD features from the start so that consumers won't have to buy another version of the console in the future. For the same reason, we're using Blu-ray as the PS3's disc format." - Ken Kutaragi (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/lair/news.html?sid=6129611)

I suggest that the section "Storage" be split into 2.

The first section should be titled "Optical/Hard Disks". Here info on the slot-loading Blu-Ray/DVD/CD-ROM drive and the Linux pre-installed hard disk can be put.

The second section should be titled "Flash Memory Cards". It should also probably cleaned up and written something like this:

- combined slot for Secure Digital (SD) and MultiMedia (MMC) card

- slot for Compact Flash (CF) Type I

- slot for Compact Flash (CF) Type II - this slot also supports MicroDrives.

- slot for Memory Stick Standard/ Standard Pro

- slot for Memory Stick Duo/ Duo Pro

Region Coding

I suggest that the section on region coding is edited. As for as I know, nothing has been confirmed. I think that, especially, non-region coding on movies is rather unlikely, and the quotation is focused on games. Martin 14:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk Archive?

I suggest we archive some of the outdated sections of talk, as the page is becoming rather lengthy, so that it takes quite a while to load...

My idea would be to move all the currently outdated sections to "/Archive 1" (to be renamed to "/Pre-launch Archive 1" after launch...) After launch move all the remaining speculation to "/Pre-launch Archive 2". After that I suppose we could start with "/Archive 1" and go on from there...

--Wulf 03:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

SquareEnix and Final Fantasy

If memory serves me correctly, SquareEnix has broken away from Sony and joined up with Microsoft. They are planning to release Final Fantasy XIII on the Microsoft Xbox 360, as well as re-release Final Fantasy XI and XII on Microsoft systems.

Nope sorry, FFXIII is scheduled for the PS3. FF:CC2 for the Revolution, and FFXI for the 360. FF11 as you may know is an MMORPG and far from a mainstream Final Fantasy title. Theres no rerelease for FF12 planned. Taladar 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Taladar is correct, SquareEnix has totally stayed with Sony, but has soem side projects on the other consoles.ShotokanTuning 13:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

your both kinda right, SE has expressed a lot of interest in the xbox 360 and i think is going to release more than just 11 on the 360 next year (we'll see), and even though it makes since for them to release FF11 on 360, so would releaseing the Unannounced FFXIII game. SE is still in bed with Sony, however sony does not have a exclusivity agreement with SE regarding there games so XIII on 360 is very very possible. Tik 20:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To first user: You might be thinking of Mist Walker. Alot of former Square members have signed on there. -- Psi edit

Actually, FFXIII isn't even confirmed for PS3. Thusfar, SquareEnix has expressed interest in developing versions for both the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360.

Backwards compatibility news actually rumors

You should put a note in that section, the backwards compatibility section should get a note refering that the sources are unofficial and may be rumors. Jzhang 16:19, 18 November 2005 (PST)

Yeah, Famitsu just confirmed in this week that controller is definitive and will not be changed. Gamespot just classify the rumours of re-estilization as "Bogus". I think the controler is the final because your official photo diponible in http://www.playstation.com/products.html --Brazil4Linux 18:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Famitsu confirmed from Sony that they wouldnt be revealing controller changes at the big show in January. It was rumor-spreading websites like Joystiq that took that and twisted it to say the controller will never change. Anything to drum up more traffic I guess. Taladar 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Will not have changes - the controller is definitive since E3 2005. I know that lot of people think the controller ugly. Doesn't have official words of Sony on changes, The controller is final since E3 and press releases divulged. --Brazil4Linux 13:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hard Drive

Any ideas how many gigabytes of space the Hard Drive will provide? Dionyseus 19:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Kutaragi says at E3 that 80 GB is the minimum and the 120 GB is the ideal. --Brazil4Linux 09:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Order

Going to rearrange the topics some in order of importance. If anyone doesnt like the new layout mention something here. Taladar 10:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Bittage"

I know the various systems were known for their "bittage" (i.e. SNES was 16-bit, PSX was 32-bit, N64 was 64-bit, and PS2/X-Box/Dreamcast/Gamecube were 128-bit); what's this "generation"? Still 128-bit, or 256-bit? --Yar Kramer 21:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bit width was always a term subject to a lot of marketing spin. In later generations it has become such a confusing and moot point to definitively place a bit label on any console that I think marketing departments avoid it alltogether. Cell contains a 64-bit wide PowerPC derivative (PPE) and several fast 128-bit SIMD processors as well. What is the overall bit width? *shrug* It's impossible to say and is fairly irrelevant. -- uberpenguin 21:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
So the bid width is "a marketing ploy", got it. --Yar Kramer 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Not as such, but in the context of console game systems the figure is totally irrelevant to the consumer. -- uberpenguin 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Uhh, just so you know. The Xbox and the Gamecube weren't 128 bits. The Xbox had a 32 bit processor, and the Gamecube had a 64 bit processor.
Both CPUs contained 128-bit SIMD units and registers, just as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 do, and likely Nintendo Revolution will. So we're back at the questions: how do you fairly define the bit label, and how exactly is it at all relevant to the consumer? I think I already answered those questions above. The clear-cut way in which the bit label was derived for consoles in the past no longer works since it's usually inpractical and a waste of money and die space to build CPUs with 128-bit or higher integer precision. -- uberpenguin 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Xbox CPU: 32-Bit Micro PGA2 733 MHz Intel Pentium III. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Detailed_specifications It was a 32bit processor. End of story.
Oh, but if only the world were that black and white. It's unfortunate that the Wikipedia article is so black and white, but it does demonstrate two important things. First, don't use Wikipedia as a source for computer architecture and second, don't take computer architecture terms at face value if you don't know how they are used. Allow me to explain.
Being a stock P6 IA-32, the Xbox's CPU has 32-bit wide GPRs, integer and ALU components, as well as 32-bit max length instruction words (though as I'm sure you're aware, x86 uses variable-length instruction words largely for code density considerations). However, all IA-32s since the Pentium Pro (that is, P6 and later) have used 36 address lines in order to support PAE, meaning the addressing bus is 36 bits wide, not 32. Furthermore, since Pentium IIIs support the MMX extensions to x86 (also present in all P6 and later designs), they have several 64-bit wide SIMD registers, meaning that the MMX portion of the chip is 64 bits wide, not 32. Even further, Intel introduced the first version of SSE with the Katmai (of course, the Xbox's CPU is a Coppermine, but it naturally supports SSE as well). This specifies 8 128-bit vector registers for use with the SSE instructions, meaning that this SIMD SSE portion of the chip is actually 128 bits wide, not 32 (as an aside, I think the Pentium III implementation of SSE uses the lower portion of the 128 bit registers for FPU operations as well, which means that technically the FPU is also 128 bit, even though it doesn't use the upper portions of the registers).
The reason I said things were much simpler in earlier platforms is because they were. The Nintendo 64 used a MIPS R4000 derivative; which is a very simple 64 bit design. The PlayStation used a MIPS R3000 compatible, also an extremely simple 32 bit design. (earlier consoles are even simpler; designs like the MOS 6502, WDC 65c816, and M68k are pretty cut-and-dry 8, 16, and 16 bit microprocessors, respectively) Things get considerably trickier when we start using high performance superpipelined superscalar general purpose CPUs, which, for efficiency and usefulness, are designed with several different bit widths for different tasks. Now, where's this nice "end of story" you referred to? The Pentium III used in the Xbox sports at least FOUR different bit widths internally, so unlike the good 'ol strictly integer load/store architecture of the MIPS R3000, it isn't entirely obvious as to what the bit width of the Xbox's CPU is (and I haven't even TOUCHED on the highly vectorized design of the GPU). Now, I will grant you that most people will refer to IA-32 P6 as "32 bit" out of convenience because most people who would say such a thing in a useful context know that they are referring to the GPR width, integer units and ALU width, and flat address space. However, the entire point of this discussion was that bit width is largely meaningless when talking about CPUs these days, as I have just verbosely demonstrated. Ask any EE with some knowledge of digital design or programmer with hardware experience what the bit width of a P6 is, and they will tell you something similar to what I just expressed. Now... See why we like to avoid the 'bit width label' for videogame consoles these days? If any of that doesn't make sense to you, I encourage you to read those Wikipedia articles and perhaps dig around sites like Ars Technica (or, if you're brave, actually download some microprocessor specifications from vendors' websites). Also, you might want to read the relevant section in the CPU article: Central processing unit#Integer_precision -- uberpenguin 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Nobody cares about that fillibuster technical jargon. Xbox uses a PC CPU, and the Pentium III is well known as a 32bit processor. Nuff said.
Having worked with N64 code, I can tell you that "bittage" is about as meaningless as speaker power specifications. Although the N64 was touted as being 64-bit, I have yet to see any game which actually uses 64-bit instructions in non-OS code. It's just marketing bullshit. Someone42 07:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is still pretty fair to say that the Nintendo 64 is a 64 bit platform; by the common industry definition of the CPU bit label, the N64's MIPS R4000 derivative definitely qualifies. Things just become a lot more obscure when you're talking about modern microprocessors with several different bit width busses and execution units. -- uberpenguin 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that, instead of using obsure terms like bittage, a console generation is best defined by its platform leader. A-still evolving set of platforms usually takes on the "next gen" label, while the previous platforms assume the label of the most prevalent console. For example, after the first generation, the Atari 2600 was the most prevalent, so we would consider that the Atari generation, then came the NES generation, then the SNES generation, the Playstation generation, and this generation is the PS2 gen. -- Doom127
"Generation platform leader" is even more subjective a criteria than bit width... -- uberpenguin 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with that assessment. By the time that a console generation winds down, it's a very, very *rare* case in which one console hasn't pushed ahead in terms of sales and popularity. During the generation itself, it is of course "current gen" (so there's no need to speculate as to a gen title until the generation winds down), and the next gen is, of course "next gen" until it becomes current gen. But once a generation completes itself, the winner is nearly almost always blatantly evident. This generation it was the PS2, last generation it was the PSOne, prior to that it was the SNES, before that it was the NES, and the Atari 2600 before that. It's not an ambiguous thing. -- Doom127
You would never be hard pressed to find people to disagree upon your assessment, and you'd certainly never be able to get people to universally agree upon an uncontested "winner" of most generations. Most people wouldn't argue that the PlayStation 2 is mostly a 64-bit unit, but you'd easily be able to find those who make a valid argument for it being a 128-bit unit as well. Who is right? I'm not going to presume to say.. -- uberpenguin 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You dispute that each of those consoles I listed sold more units than the competition at that time? -- Doom127
I dispute that number of units moved is the sole metric of a device's success, though I'm really not going to argue what I see as a moot point with you. However you choose to classify videogame consoles is entirely up to you, and doing so by ranking the best selling models is certainly one sane way of going about business. I hold only that there is and can be no readily agreeable way to lump together all videogame devices into easily defined categories. -- uberpenguin 03:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hard drive interfaces

Any idea what interface the hard drives will be under?

It'll be cool if sata drives allow hard drive chaining

There's no indication yet... It will probably be whatever is cheapest; likely ATA or SATA. For a single drive setup there is little reason to choose one interface over the other for a game console right now -- uberpenguin 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ref #4 is dead

Doesn't go anywhere but a screwed page on IGN.

Animation For Controller

I don't think the animation style of the controller works with the squigly lines. I also think there might be a copyright issue.

Could you clarify to what you're referring? --Doom127
There is no copyright issue. Some kid on the gamespot forums made it.
Copyrights issues or not, it's still fanfare and opinionated, and it really has no place in the article. This isn't a place for "myth debunking," only facts. -- uberpenguin 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor Error

The official name of this console is PLAYSTATION 3, not PlayStation 3. Also, I have never heard of it being called PS3.

No... As was pointed out before, the capitals are used by Sony in its press releases for emphasis (very common tactic). Sony always refers to PlayStation and PlayStation 2 as such, and also makes reference to their "PlayStation family" of game consoles. Furthermore, Sony commonly uses the shortening "PS3" in their own press releases (SCEI press release) -- uberpenguin
to first poster; whats written on top of the PLAYSTATION3 console ? i cant read please guide me

Floating Point Performance

I am changing the comments on overall floating point performance to more accurately reflect the information that we have available to us right now. I want to make it clear what my reasoning for these changes is:

Firstly, I would like to update the calculations regarding the total floating point performance of the Cell microprocessor. According to IBM's Paper on the design and implementation of the Cell, an individual SPE has a peak floating point capacity of 25.6 GFLOPS in single precision. The 7 enabled SPEs in the PS3's Cell would total a theoretical maximum of 179.2 GFLOPS. This is in addition to the performance of the VMX unit in the PPE, which we do not have definite numbers for. However, the PPE in the Cell is the result of the same design process that led to the 3 symmetric cores in the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU, which also have one VMX-128 unit each. Based on Microsoft's marketing, the theoretical peak performance of the Xenon is 115 GFLOPS. Dividing by 3, the performance of a single core's VMX unit should be about 38.3 GFLOPS, which we can take to be a reasonable approximation for the PPE in the Cell. The total single-precision floating point performance of the Cell should then be 218 GFLOPS. I want to emphasize, here, that my calculation is in line with Sony's own marketing materials, as well as the performance of IBM's server blades (about 200 GFLOPS for one 3.0 GHz cell). I would also like to emphasize that this theoretical maximum performance would be well-nigh impossible to achieve in real-world applications. The IBM report referenced above details testing which indicates that SPEs can be expected to achieve about 75.9% of their maximum performance under normal operation.

Secondly, I am changing the comments that indicated that the Cell is equal to or slightly better than the Xbox 360's CPU at floating point tasks. When we use IBM's factor of 75.9%, the Cell will still perform at over 165 GFLOPS (or 136 GFLOPS for the SPEs alone), which is significantly higher than the Xbox 360's theoretical maximum of 115 GFLOPS (of course, real world performance for the 360 can be expected to be reduced by a similar factor). I am returning the article to the old language which read "considerably higher".

You are incorrectly mixing results of two entirely different test runs. In IBM's Cell Engine Architecture Performance Review IBM uses a "wide range" of applications to "showcase the performance of the Cell": Matrix Multiplication, Linpack, MPEG-2 video decoding, Triangle Transform and Lighting, and cryptography algorithms such as AES, TDES, MD5, and so on. We are concerned with the first two, Matrix Multiplication and Linpack, as those are the two that you are confusing.
Matrix Multiplication (single precision):
C = A X B
256 x 256 matrix
Result:
SPEsim (GFLOPS) 25.12
Hardware (GFLOPS) 25.01
Accuracy (%) 99.6%
Efficiency: not given for this test
"the matrix multiplication performance increases almost linearly with the number of SPUs, especially with large matrix sizes. Using eight SPUs, the parallel version of matrix multiplication achieves 201GFLOPS, very close to the theoretical maximum of 204.8GFLOPS".
Linpack (single precision):
Ax = b
1kx1k to 8kx8k matrices
Result:
SPEsim (GFLOPS) 16.03 - 160
Hardware (GFLOPS) 14.94 - 155.5
Accuracy (%) 93.2 - 97.19%
Efficiency
-single SPU 1.02 - 91.8%
-parallelized 58.36 - 75.93%
Note: parallelized metrics for 7 SPUs and 8kx8k matrix not given
As you can see these are two entirely different tests. As such it is incorrect to take the efficiency metric from the Linpack test and apply it to the Sony stated figure of 218 GFLOPS which is derived from Matrix Multiplication theoretical performance.
Theoretical Matrix Multiplication performance:
25.6 GFLOPS per SPU
204.8 GFLOPS total across 8 SPUs
179.2 GFLOPS total across 7 SPUs (PS3 Cell)
38.3 GFLOPS (estimated) PPE
179.2 + 38.3 = 217.5
We get the Sony stated figure of 218 GLFOPS (217.5) which was obviously theoretical.
Actual Matrix Multiplication performance (SPEsim):
25.12 GFLOPS per SPU
200.96 GFLOPs total across 8 SPUs
175.84 GFLOPS total across 7 SPUs (PS3 Cell)
38.3 GFLOPS (estimated) PPE
175.2 + 38.3 = 213.5
The actual benchmarked figure of 213.5 is very close to the Sony stated figure of 218 GFLOPS.
I am removing your inaccurate extrapolation references.
Xkxdxmx 13:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Finally, all this information about the theoretical and estimated practical performance of the Cell in particular and the PS3 in general well bear a disclaimer indicating that all calculations are a theoretical maximum based on a best-case scenario. The 75.9% performance factor will be mentioned, as will the fact that specifications may change before the PS3 is launched. The difficulty in optimizing for the Cell architecture will also be addressed.

Spoonboy42 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The performance is noted as theoretical 6 times:
"The performance statistics given for the PS3 and Xbox 360 in Sony's presentation were based on the theoretical maximum performance of the systems"
"real-world performance for both systems will be lower"
"the theoretical peak performance of a single SPE is 25.6 GFLOPS"
"all the above figures are based on the theoretical performance of components"
"real-world performance WILL be less than the theoretical maximum"
I am removing some redundancy
Xkxdxmx 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

internet

it was said that the ps3 would be able to go on the internet.i didnt see anything on the main page for this unless it was deleted

Hard disk drive will have a Linux installed then you will be capable to surf in Internet with Konqueror or Mozilla Firefox.

Expected Price

Sony has said it will be expensive. The cost to produce the PS3 has been estimated to be $451. Also it was suggested that Sony would sell an add-on hard disk to allow Linux to run on the PS3. This suggest that they can not sell the PS3 for a loss. The realist price for the PS3 is then $450+. Daniel

Where did you hear about the add-on hard disk, form what I heard there will be no hard disk. Yes, the cost to produce the PS3 has been estimated to be $458, but just about every console is sold at a loss at first, software is where they make their money. The Xbox 360 is sold at a loss of $126 per unit, so for example take off $126 from the production cost of the PS3 and an under $400 launch for the PS3 is very possible. Some people might be wondering why the production costs for the PS3 is lower than the 360, and the answer is actually quite simple, Sony owns the manufactiring factories, they own the BR disk technology, they own the Cell, so they save a lot of money by not having to pay royalty fees. $300-400 launch price in North America is very possible. As for the "going to be expensive" comment, let's be serious here, $300 is considered expensive to casual gamers. Dionyseus 01:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I heard it here: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/624/624046p1.html

They are suggesting a traditional PC box sales model for the PS3, not the sold at a loss model. -Daniel

That article is from June. Anyways, I don't see how that article would suggest that Sony cannot sell the PS3 at a loss. They did it with the original PS and the PS2, why can't they with the PS3? Dionyseus 02:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I take it back that they can't sell at a loss. If they sell a hard disk with Linux on it then they may not sell game software, which is where they make the money. This means that either the hard disk is going to be expensive or the console.

-Daniel

Why are some people changing the expected price to $400-500? The price changing that has been going on started when Daniel changed it to 400+ using some strange logic about Lynux and hard disk. The source for the original $300-400 expected price was [4] , note how the value of the Yen has fallen, 54,000 was about $494 when the article was made, today it's about $458. Consoles are generally sold for a loss during launches to penetrate the market, the Xbox 360 for example is sold at a loss of $126 per console, so a $300-400 price point is very possible for the PS3 launch. $400-500 makes no sense, considering it only costs about $458 to make. Dionyseus 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The points I made are not strange for professionals in the industry. Given all the data including: the hardware costs, hardware features, alternate sales model potential, additional price for hard drive, it is very plausible that the PS3 will sell for $500. No one should be changing the web page to say the max price will only be $400. Mostly likely we will know for sure in one week during CES. -Daniel
You consider yourself a professional in the industry? Why do you think it will come with the hard drive? The article you referred to even points to the unlikelyhood of it coming with a hard drive. Also, please sign your commentsDionyseus 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a direct professional in the industry but I work with those who are and discuss such things with them. There will most likely be a bundled hard disk option. That is what I'm refering too. I'm referring to the upper range of the PS3, so we should include hardware that is available, similar to what is done with the Xbox. Thanks for the discussion, Daniel Cardenas
There's no indication at all that there will be two different packages like for the Xbox 360 (core and premium) . I think you're confused. PS used memory cards, PS2 used memory cards, it is much more likely that the PS3 would use memory sticks than a hard disk. Dionyseus 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting a price of $300 is unrealistic. You were confused about hard disk option. You are in violation of the wikipedia 3 revert rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR Let the consensus opinion stand. - Daniel

Do not push price if it is estiimated. Wait the console release.
It is you who are completely confused. You come here all of a sudden claiming that the PS3 will be bundled with a hard disk. How about you take some of your own advice. Dionyseus 21:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it so important to list an expected price? Any number we put up there now is just speculation, any number of analysts will come up with estimated prices, and we can keep tossing around analyst sources left and right, it doesn't mean any of them are more valid then the other. We should just say that the price is still to be determined, leave in that sony mentioned it will be expencive, take out the references to the xbox 360's price and leave it up to the reader to go find rumors themselves.

If you guys remember the psp launch, analysts are infact frequently wrong, and sony doesn't automatically sell their systems for the same price over here that they do in japan.

The little pricing edit war really needs to stop, and we need to reach a compromize or you guys are gonna keep on going in this edit war over speculation, not even fact. Seraphim 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice the prices for the blu-ray disks that are coming out? http://www.blureporter.com/blu-ray/news/111 Manufacturors aren't stupid and they are aware of Sony's plans. They wouldn't be releasing these devices unless they feel they are competitive with Sony playstation 3. Because of this I'm expecting the PS3 to come out with a price as high as $650. Daniel.Cardenas 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Blue-Ray technology is Sony's, they can price it whatever they want. I expect the PS3 to retail somewhere between $300 and $400. Dionyseus 14:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

http://askmerrill.ml.com/markets_news_story/1,2263,%7BC1CF3196-5EED-4E98-A350-A2052E991F46%7D,00.html Once Sony releases the prices for their stand-alone blu-ray players than we will have a better estimate for the PS3. Expect the PS3 to cost at least $100 more than the stand alone blu-ray player. Also this gives us another clue about the release date of the PS3. It is unlikely that the PS3 will be released before Sony's stand-alone blu-ray player. Sony is saying early summer for player. Daniel.Cardenas 16:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Gameshout as a reliable source for May Release date?

Right now the only official sony word is spring 2006, and they reiterated spring 2006 at CES.

I read a lot of news and I didn't see that. EETimes said that, but they were talking about some Sony people they talked to. Not a very reliable source either. Official references from Sony said 2006 without any more clarification. Daniel.Cardenas 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

However the article currently says May 2006 based on a gameshout article that was posted 2 days before CES. Now I don't mean to sound mean or anything, but "Gameshout" is not a major game news network, why would sony give them such a HUGE exclusive? An exclusive that they didn't even mention at a major press conference 2 days later. Also in one of their posts today http://www.gameshout.com/news/012006/article2370.htm they completly contradict themselves. And switch back to the spring 2006 date. And on top of that they say that "Sony also mentions that the Sony PS3 will be unveiled at the annual video game conference E3 in Los Angeles" since E3 is in may, if that's true, they would be announcing the release of their system and releasing it within 30 days globally. That's not gonna happen. Even more contradiction "Just yesterday at CES, Sony said that they will have a Blu-ray disc player in "Summer 2006"." there are going to be no BD players untill a few months after PS3 launches?

I'm going to remove the may 2006 dates and revert them to the Spring 2006 official line. Also i'm going to remove the Gameshout Link because it's obviously not a valid source. Seraphim 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please site a reliable reference from Sony. I removed the Spring reference and put 2006 which is what the latest official sources from Sony say. Sony official sources say summer for standalone blu-ray disk player. So March release for PS3 is not realistic. Daniel.Cardenas 05:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's a backtracking thing. There were a ton of sources to point to spring 2006, including all the major gamesites that got that as an official date from sony, and an interview with one of the sony bigwigs. However now that they are just saying "2006" as the official line leads me to believe that the rumors about them not making a spring release are problary true. So I guess all the old sources are thrown out, and we just go by what they said at CES today, 2006. Seraphim 05:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Where's your source Daniel. Where's your source that Sony changed it 2006. Dionyseus 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.sony.com/ces/playstation.shtml. Its listed as a refence in the main page. Daniel.Cardenas 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Northern Hemisphere release in summer is wrong and should be removed. North America is correct. Unlikely release in that time frame to China, India, Russia, etc... Daniel.Cardenas 06:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That little page cannot be used as evidence that Sony has changed it to 2006. Dionyseus 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually it can, because sony used to state Spring 2006, but now they are saying just 2006. When you combine that with sony announcing that no bluray players will be avaliable untill the summer, it all adds up to them dropping their spring target.

Either way, right now the latest word from sony is a generic 2006, all sources from before they made that annoucement are no longer the most up to date info, and therefore the "2006" is what should be posted. Seraphim 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, better to use broader terms than to risk giving false info. --Wulf 03:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/a/Talk%7EPlayStation_3_Archive3_aded.html"