UPDATE: Rumor: EA Already Has the 360's Successor, Microsoft to Reveal at E3

[CrystalShadow]

Why do I have a feeling this means Wii 2.0 (Project Cafe) will once again be the weakest link on the market?

Eh. It'll be a different context though.

The Wii was intentionally weak. (no other way of putting it really.). Project cafe, judging by it's stats isn't going to be all that weak, but if it launches first it'll still end up being the weakest console.

(Look back to the previous generation and you'll see why. The consoles in order of hardware power, from weakest to best are: Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox - Which matches the order of release.
But also note the dreamcast was quite a bit earlier than the others, and much weaker.)

Chances are, with the way things are going, project cafe will be the weak console in the next generation for the same reasons that the Dreamcast was.

Yes, but remember that the Dreamcast was also signifigantly more powerful than the Ps1 or N64. Cafe is still less powerful than the Ps3. Its still staying one generation behind.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. The PS3's power is over-rated.

Sure the Cell processor makes comparisons awkward, but it's generally the graphics hardware that determines a Gaming system's power.
And The PS3 has, essentially, an Nvidia 7800 powering it.
Project Cafe's specs aren't known with all that much precision, but I can tell you that the rumoured specs being less powerful than a ps3 is a bit of a dubious claim.
Radeon HD4000 series graphics are, uh, 3 generations more recent than the basis of the PS3's graphics hardware, and at that point, even mid-range parts match what used to be high-end performance.

The Cell processor is the great unknown, but that can't have that much of an impact, because then the gap between the 360 & PS3 would be much more obvious than it is.

Which is why stuff like Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 doesn't keep looking better and better, meaning your understanding of graphics technology and reality aren't incompatable.

Oh wait....

The power of hardware is in the results, all others are simply redundant by the way you measure it.

What results? Seriously, what are you talking about?

I haven't seen the PS3 doing anything particularly impressive. If we go by results alone, High-end PC's look useless.
But I'm willing to bet that were they being used to their full potential, a high end PC would wipe the floor with a PS3.

Honestly, your reply doesn't even make any sense whatsoever anyway.

But, it's a pointless argument while the specifications of project Cafe remain as vague as they do.

I mean, Ati 4000 series? That doesn't say much. If that's equivalent to a 4200 it'll be a joke. If it's equivalent to a 4800, that's quite a different story.

But, hey. You think, with the vague, mostly unknown information we have, that the PS3 is more powerful? (When in many cases it struggles to outperform the 360 in any practical context).
Go right ahead and make such assumptions.

We'll see...

 

[bombadilillo]

High end PC graphics are laughable when you consider a high end video card costs 2x as much as a whole ps3. The graphics leap is pathetic.

 

[ph0b0s123]

The new console, which is supposedly still in an early build and housed in a PC case,

Grin.... Yeah, it probably has most of the same components I am running in my PC at the moment. Lets be honest console development is basically working out what PC components of the time you can fit and keep cool in a console case, for the price point you want.

Seriously though please have DX 11 capable hardware. Or DX 12 as Microsoft will be launching Win 8 and I am sure a new version of directx, around the same time.

High end PC graphics are laughable when you consider a high end video card costs 2x as much as a whole ps3. The graphics leap is pathetic.

Or maybe since all the cards get to run are console ports none of the latest gen cards have been able to show what they can do.....

 

[bombadilillo]

High end PC graphics are laughable when you consider a high end video card costs 2x as much as a whole ps3. The graphics leap is pathetic.

Or maybe since all the cards get to run are console ports none of the latest gen cards have been able to show what they can do.....

I don't see how this is an argument for pc gaming. Even more reason to stick with a console where your running games native. If you actually believe that.

BTW, you argument falls down when you look at games that are pc exclusive and supposed to top tier in the graphic department. Go youtube some new pc games running at highest settings and show me where this magical better graphics exists outside of a rendered tech demo.

 

[ph0b0s123]

High end PC graphics are laughable when you consider a high end video card costs 2x as much as a whole ps3. The graphics leap is pathetic.

Or maybe since all the cards get to run are console ports none of the latest gen cards have been able to show what they can do.....

I don't see how this is an argument for pc gaming. Even more reason to stick with a console where your running games native. If you actually believe that.

BTW, you argument falls down when you look at games that are pc exclusive and supposed to top tier in the graphic department. Go youtube some new pc games running at highest settings and show me where this magical better graphics exists outside of a rendered tech demo.

May comment was not an argument for PC gaming but an answer to your question of why cards that cost so much are not showing much of an upgrade over console graphics.

And even the limited number of PC exclusives now hardly push graphics boundaries, as they look to keep their engines as something they can easily convert to consoles down the road.

Hardly anyone wants to do a Crysis and develop something that consoles are not capable of as that cuts of a potential market down the road for your engine.

There have been hardly any games that push modern video cards for a good few years. You could rightly ask why keep buying them then, if there is no advantage, but that is a different discussion.

 

[bombadilillo]

High end PC graphics are laughable when you consider a high end video card costs 2x as much as a whole ps3. The graphics leap is pathetic.

Or maybe since all the cards get to run are console ports none of the latest gen cards have been able to show what they can do.....

I don't see how this is an argument for pc gaming. Even more reason to stick with a console where your running games native. If you actually believe that.

BTW, you argument falls down when you look at games that are pc exclusive and supposed to top tier in the graphic department. Go youtube some new pc games running at highest settings and show me where this magical better graphics exists outside of a rendered tech demo.

May comment was not an argument for PC gaming but an answer to your question of why cards that cost so much are not showing much of an upgrade over console graphics.

And even the limited number of PC exclusives now hardly push graphics boundaries, as they look to keep their engines as something they can easily convert to consoles down the road.

Hardly anyone wants to do a Crysis and develop something that consoles are not capable of as that cuts of a potential market down the road for your engine.

There have been hardly any games that push modern video cards for a good few years. You could rightly ask why keep buying them then, if there is no advantage, but that is a different discussion.

I see, I was responding thinking this was an extension of why I wrote that. Which specifically was, why should I spend money on a gaming pc when there are slim advantages due to the cost.