"Nobody will ever use 100% of PS3" says Sony

  • Thread starter Pebb
  • 39 comments
  • 1,934 views
I get what Toronado is saying.

Like 10 years ago, programs were much smaller. Installs of like 50 megs were LARGE. Now its not unusual to use near a gig for some apps. Its not that these programs have become amazingly complex, its just cheaper to spend less time developing it, coding with VB and C rather than assembler, and so on.

People have gone back and redone programs some they perform just like their orginal versions, just using 10% of the system resources. Just by coding them better. But its cheaper to get more memory and fancier hardware than to spend the much greater time fine tuning the coding.

Like Toronado said, you could probably take most of the XBOX 360 titles, re code the, and have them run fine on a plain old XBOX.
 
Azuremen
People have gone back and redone programs some they perform just like their orginal versions, just using 10% of the system resources. Just by coding them better. But its cheaper to get more memory and fancier hardware than to spend the much greater time fine tuning the coding.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Companies don't bother pushing a system to 100%, because by the time the system is near 100% it is usually time for it to be replaced and it is easier and cheaper to just move the development over to the next console.
 
Jeremy Ricci
Nope.

The only time you'll ever see 100% use is in testing when they run redundant operations on the CPU and GPU. No game will use 100% of the processing load on the GPU or CPu, ever.
Click to expand...

Jeremy Ricci
Okay, let me clarify once again.

They may use 100% of it's "processing power" but no one will ever tap it's potential to use that 100% effeciently to maximize it's software output.

So, games like Gundam may "use 100%" because it slows down beyond playability, but to say that the power of the PS3 has been "tapped" just because THAT GAME hits 100% is stupid. And thats the point I'm trying to get across.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself. Your first post CLEARLY stated that you were referring to "processor load".

I suppose you think this is just the grandest news ever, yeah? Did it ever occur to you that at NO point in the history of ANYTHING has anyone EVER hit 100% of something's potential?

Hell, we haven't even hit the full potential of fire.. and we've had that for many thousands of years.
 
Never underestimate the power of bloatware. Someone, somewhere, will find a way to overtax the PS3. Basically, haven't they done that already? Weren't there games in development that had to be "scaled back" to run at "acceptable frame rates"?

And remember that Sony said the same thing at the beginning of the PS2 launch, and then as the PS2 was fading into the sunset they said that GT4 (for example) is using every last bit of the PS2's ability. Funny how "never" and "definitely" are interchangeable depending on where you are in the product's life cycle.


03R1
I was going to say that one too but I found this.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

Often attributed to Gates in 1981. Gates has repeatedly denied ever saying this:
I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time... I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again.
Bloomberg Business News (19 January 1996); also WIRED (16 January 1997)
Click to expand...




He didn't say that exact quote, so technically Gates is correct. However, 25 years ago, he did make specific mention about the reasoning behind the 640K limit, and how a desktop user requiring more than that would be very unlikely. It was back when Intel was claiming the 286 was too powerful for the desktop, and would never be used in the forseeable future...of 1982. And quite honestly it wasn't until 10 years later that the workarounds being used at the time proved incredibly inefficient, memory prices plummeted to a super low $40/MB, and Windows 3.1 was the resource hog of choice. Soon after, the talks about Windows 4.0 brought the 640k quote up from the depths, and Gates was on CNN talking about how he regretted making such claims, but that he "was right at the time". Of course, if you hadn't suffered through those 12 years of managing DOS prompt hell, you might not have the vivid recollection of it I regret having.

The quote is right up there with "Play it again, Sam." Right idea, wrong syntax.
 
In a way Microsoft is saying the same thing about games on DVD, and that there is no need for games to be on HD DVD/Blu-ray.

Of course, the same was said about games on CDs when the PS2 came out, and it wasn't long before developers took advantage of the greater disc capacity of DVD over CD.

These are yet more examples in a long line of examples of how Moore's Law (Dr. Gordon, not Peter!) applies to so many technological products and not just transistors.
 
Folding@Home appears to be the only program that currently stretches the PS3's processing muscle power.

Having run F@H on it for several hours/days at a time I am happy to report no ill effects, or even over heating... although it would heat up a small room, just not the PS3. :D
 
I would imagine that the program would do that, considering that is almost FRIED my thousand dollar computer...
 
...And by fried I mean slowed it down beyond use. It has a gig of RAM, an AMD Athlod x64 dual core processor, and was running nothing else at the time.
 
Matthew Keller
...And by fried I mean slowed it down beyond use. It has a gig of RAM, an AMD Athlod x64 dual core processor, and was running nothing else at the time.
Click to expand...
So then you cap the program's CPU usage. It's quite flexible.
 

Latest Posts

Back