Ultimate NGC Video Game Console Thread. Playstation 3/Xbox Live/Video Game Discussion
04-08-2006, 10:43 PM
#46
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mitchellville, MD
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by clokwork
hahahaha riiiiiiiiight, I just try to make my paper work for me. Seeing that 56" for that price makes me jealous. about 6 months ago, I got my 42" for only 150 less than that 
ah well, that happens heh.
The weird thing is, when I replace this one with a next gen TV within 2-3 years, either I sell this one or have one bomb @ss TV for the bedroom
ah well, that happens heh.
The weird thing is, when I replace this one with a next gen TV within 2-3 years, either I sell this one or have one bomb @ss TV for the bedroom
SHYT ain't nothin' wrong wit' that...
04-08-2006, 11:42 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by clokwork
hahahaha riiiiiiiiight, I just try to make my paper work for me. Seeing that 56" for that price makes me jealous. about 6 months ago, I got my 42" for only 150 less than that
ah well, that happens heh.
The weird thing is, when I replace this one with a next gen TV within 2-3 years, either I sell this one or have one bomb @ss TV for the bedroom
ah well, that happens heh.
The weird thing is, when I replace this one with a next gen TV within 2-3 years, either I sell this one or have one bomb @ss TV for the bedroom
nothing wrong with that .. just the way it is
04-09-2006, 12:04 AM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Jersey, Hudson County
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anybody wanting to fully enjoy highest quality hd picture for games I would suggest a 24" dell widescreen (they have a 30" version now too) quality is outstanding, multiple inputs, component, dsub, dvi, video. And it has higher resolution than any tv on the market. The 24" which I have actually outdoes the 1080p resolution as its native is 1920x1200.
04-09-2006, 02:59 AM
#49
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mitchellville, MD
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G35Gnome
For anybody wanting to fully enjoy highest quality hd picture for games I would suggest a 24" dell widescreen (they have a 30" version now too) quality is outstanding, multiple inputs, component, dsub, dvi, video. And it has higher resolution than any tv on the market. The 24" which I have actually outdoes the 1080p resolution as its native is 1920x1200.
REAL TALK, my friend has a 32" Dell and that shyt is like that. I like the fact that it has an option were u can play the game and watch tv on a split screen. That tv is hot.
04-09-2006, 04:29 AM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by terryw
if you want to take full advantage of PS3, you need to get a TV that supports 1080p. (1920x1080 pixels!!!!)
1080p defined
1080p resolution--which equates to 1,920x1,080 pixels--is the latest HD Holy Grail. That's because 1080p monitors are theoretically capable of displaying every pixel of the highest-resolution HD broadcasts. On paper, they should offer more than twice the resolution of today's 1,280x720, or 720p, HDTVs, such as Samsung's HL-P5085W. Some companies, such as LG, refer to these super-high-res of sets as ultra-HD, while others prefer to substitute true or full for ultra.
1080i, the former king of the HDTV hill, actually boasts an identical 1,920x1,080 resolution but conveys the images in an interlaced format (the i in 1080i). In a tube-based television, otherwise known as a CRT, 1080i sources get "painted" on the screen sequentially: the odd-numbered lines of resolution appear on your screen first, followed by the even-numbered lines--all within 1/30 of a second. Progressive-scan formats such as 480p, 720p, and 1080p convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, which makes for a smoother, cleaner image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content (video games moving at 60 frames per second). As opposed to tubes, microdisplays (DLP, LCoS, and LCD rear-projection) and other fixed-pixel TVs, including plasma and LCD flat-panel, are inherently progressive in nature, so when the incoming source is interlaced, as 1080i is, they convert it to progressive scan for display.
Progressive scan owns interlaced display. The highest standard supported by xbox360 is 1080i. If you truly wants to experience next gen graphics that will blow the xbox360 away, you gotta fork the dough for a badass 1080p tv. The difference between 1080i and 1080p is HUGE according to editors at cnet.
1080p defined
1080p resolution--which equates to 1,920x1,080 pixels--is the latest HD Holy Grail. That's because 1080p monitors are theoretically capable of displaying every pixel of the highest-resolution HD broadcasts. On paper, they should offer more than twice the resolution of today's 1,280x720, or 720p, HDTVs, such as Samsung's HL-P5085W. Some companies, such as LG, refer to these super-high-res of sets as ultra-HD, while others prefer to substitute true or full for ultra.
1080i, the former king of the HDTV hill, actually boasts an identical 1,920x1,080 resolution but conveys the images in an interlaced format (the i in 1080i). In a tube-based television, otherwise known as a CRT, 1080i sources get "painted" on the screen sequentially: the odd-numbered lines of resolution appear on your screen first, followed by the even-numbered lines--all within 1/30 of a second. Progressive-scan formats such as 480p, 720p, and 1080p convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, which makes for a smoother, cleaner image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content (video games moving at 60 frames per second). As opposed to tubes, microdisplays (DLP, LCoS, and LCD rear-projection) and other fixed-pixel TVs, including plasma and LCD flat-panel, are inherently progressive in nature, so when the incoming source is interlaced, as 1080i is, they convert it to progressive scan for display.
Progressive scan owns interlaced display. The highest standard supported by xbox360 is 1080i. If you truly wants to experience next gen graphics that will blow the xbox360 away, you gotta fork the dough for a badass 1080p tv. The difference between 1080i and 1080p is HUGE according to editors at cnet.
As for 600$ pricetag, I defenitelly would pay for it. *** off XBOX 360, NEVER getting one of those.
04-09-2006, 12:13 PM
#51
Premier Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NoVA
Posts: 5,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ you really dont know what your missing. the 360 is my first microsoft machine since I used to be a Sony fanboy, but this box is excellent. I have never bought so many consecutive games and enjoyed games back to back like this on the ps2. the games were spread out quite a bit.
04-09-2006, 01:13 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 3,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sony has been great at extending the life of their consoles. The PS1 lasted 5 years while PS2 will be 6 years old by the time ps3 comes out. Its simply natural that sometime during PS3's life span 1080p will become the norm. Its up to the developers to include higher resolution and higher quality textures in their games for true 1080i/p support. The important thing to note is that the native resolution between 1080i and 1080p are the same @ 1920x1080. So 1080p does not require higher quality textures than 1080i, its very easy for a developer to support 1080p if they are already supporting 1080i.
As for processing power, 1080i requires 1.485 Gb/s of bandwidth while 1080p is sending 2x the information at around 3Gb/s thus requiring more power.
From what I read on the specs of the cell processor. while the Xbox360 has 3 general processing cores that are designed to handle anything. PS3 has 1 general processing core, and 9 very specialized vector processors. The vector units on the cell are designed especially for pure floating point parellele processing which is exactly the type of processing needed for rendering at high resolutions. This architecture deviate a lot from the traditional way of using the GPU to do most of the graphics processing as on the xbox360. The Cell is a graphical powerhouse that will work together with the rsx-GPU which in is self is already clocked higher than the xbox360 gpu.
from all the specs that sony has published, everything from the blueray drive to the way the cell processor is designed seems like they are truly commited to the 1080p standard.
as for price speculation, i ve read 500 bucks from most publications including EGM and gamespot and ign. Sony has cut down a lot of the hardware ports from the orignal concept in order to bring cost down. 600 is also possible now considering its confirmed to have a 60gb 2.5" hd standard. I dont think i would pay 600 for one, at that price it might fail to gain mass support.
As for processing power, 1080i requires 1.485 Gb/s of bandwidth while 1080p is sending 2x the information at around 3Gb/s thus requiring more power.
From what I read on the specs of the cell processor. while the Xbox360 has 3 general processing cores that are designed to handle anything. PS3 has 1 general processing core, and 9 very specialized vector processors. The vector units on the cell are designed especially for pure floating point parellele processing which is exactly the type of processing needed for rendering at high resolutions. This architecture deviate a lot from the traditional way of using the GPU to do most of the graphics processing as on the xbox360. The Cell is a graphical powerhouse that will work together with the rsx-GPU which in is self is already clocked higher than the xbox360 gpu.
from all the specs that sony has published, everything from the blueray drive to the way the cell processor is designed seems like they are truly commited to the 1080p standard.
as for price speculation, i ve read 500 bucks from most publications including EGM and gamespot and ign. Sony has cut down a lot of the hardware ports from the orignal concept in order to bring cost down. 600 is also possible now considering its confirmed to have a 60gb 2.5" hd standard. I dont think i would pay 600 for one, at that price it might fail to gain mass support.
Last edited by terryw; 04-09-2006 at 01:34 PM.
04-09-2006, 01:30 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 3,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the number of usb/firewire/media card slots etc. the original concept was full of holes of various sizes on its back. right now i think its down to 2 usb, 1 firewire and 1 magicgate
04-09-2006, 03:21 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by terryw
I dont think i would pay 600 for one, at that price it might fail to gain mass support.
However, Sony is justifying the price with the fact that the PS3 can play the upcoming hd dvds, blu-ray. I can see the PS3 gaining mass support if the hd dvd player is actually up to par with the stand alone players releasing very soon. If the PS3 is comparable, there really is no reason to buy a stand alone player. We'll have to wait and see ...
As for comparing PS3 vs 360 hardware, there really is no point. On paper it makes no difference which one has more raw power. Its the games and developers that will make the difference. That said, I'm pretty sure, technially the PS3 is more powerful, but its supposed to be difficult to develop games for.
Not true for the 360.
04-09-2006, 07:53 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 3,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my best guess is 400-500 for the price of the PS3, Sony is willing to take a negative hit and loose money on each console inorder to get them off the shelves. The real profit comes from liscensing and royalty fees from video games.
04-09-2006, 09:29 PM
#57
Premier Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NoVA
Posts: 5,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know all the launch titles but 360 is really doin it for me right now. I cant say that for any other system this close to launch in the past. Microsoft has really done a good job this time around. Sony will also have to do well with their online efforts. As said before, regardless to all this banter, I will still have one hooked up to my widescreen on launch day 
04-09-2006, 10:01 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by clokwork
I dont know all the launch titles but 360 is really doin it for me right now. I cant say that for any other system this close to launch in the past. Microsoft has really done a good job this time around. Sony will also have to do well with their online efforts. As said before, regardless to all this banter, I will still have one hooked up to my widescreen on launch day
04-09-2006, 10:03 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by terryw
my best guess is 400-500 for the price of the PS3, Sony is willing to take a negative hit and loose money on each console inorder to get them off the shelves. The real profit comes from liscensing and royalty fees from video games.
They've already hinted at that range
04-10-2006, 11:53 AM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by clokwork
^^ you really dont know what your missing. the 360 is my first microsoft machine since I used to be a Sony fanboy, but this box is excellent. I have never bought so many consecutive games and enjoyed games back to back like this on the ps2. the games were spread out quite a bit.