best hdtv for 2013 image
Sam Yi
I only own a regular Xbox, and am planning to buy a new console.
My question is this: Am I too late in buying gaming console? Should I wait until something else comes out? WILL something come out in the near future?
Anyone have any information or opinions?
Answer
Nobody knows what the next generation will look like or when it will be released. Anyone who says they know is a big fat LIAR cause they haven't even been designed.
In fact, the technology doesn't even exist yet to make them. Look at the number of cores in xbox360 and ps3: 3 and 8. Each on a 3.2ghz clock cycle. The last couple years have seen the death of Moore's law, which predicted the number of transistors on an IC would double every 18 months. They can't do it anymore because there's a heat barrier, so they had to resort to making multiple cores and pretending it was one "chip." It is hard to make software for and generates even more total heat than it would if they had just stuck with single core without making it any faster. But they can't do that, because the industry expects Moore-compliant products.
Look at any pc on the market today, are there any cpu's clocked faster than 4 ghz yet? No, and they don't even sell them that fast, you have to overclock them. Every new pc is at least a dual nowadays, up to 4 and it looks like they'll be going 8 soon. About to finally catch up with the ps3 except their multithreading still isn't as advanced as the Cell's is, or as good for running 3d game engines either.
So what will they make a ps4 out of? A new Cell with 16 cores? Don't bet on developers lining up to make games for that. It would also overheat like crazy. Circuit width tech is down to 45nm now, but it took three years, since the original ps3's on 90nm. That's not a very fast increase, it would never make a 16-core console realistic. Likewise if Microsoft wanted to take xbox to the next level they'd have to release some kind of 8-core goliath, it would make the red ring of death look like an ice cream social at the south pole. The tech is not there; there is no design. Not even a concept.
Now, the Wii can and probably will upgrade, but that's not gonna make it the first of the next generation. It will make it the last of the current generation, just as Wii is the last of the last generation. The only next gen part of Wii is the controller, and that is an accessory. The console is a 700mhz single-core putz. It is no more powerful than your original xbox. It can't output HD, it has no web browser, it is limited in a zillion ways. If they redesign it to have a dual-core at the standard 2 to 3ghz, then it will outperform the old wii by leaps and bounds. But it will only be a current-gen console. I don't expect them to upgrade the cpu though, only the graphics chip to make it HD capable. Because Nintendo has long feared the US digital transition when suddenly zillions of people will have new HDTV's and realize standard def really kind of sucks.
The console that will last the longest is the ps3, because it has the most advanced cpu and also the best gpu of the bunch. (400gflops compared to 240gflops for xbox's gpu). They're wasting their time on motion sensing right now, which the ps3 has done since it was released and also with the playstation eye, and xbox knows it can't make a better console yet either so it's trying to get your grandmother to play too. Motion sensing control is a joke.
There will not be any real current gen consoles released before the year 2013. Only portables.
Nobody knows what the next generation will look like or when it will be released. Anyone who says they know is a big fat LIAR cause they haven't even been designed.
In fact, the technology doesn't even exist yet to make them. Look at the number of cores in xbox360 and ps3: 3 and 8. Each on a 3.2ghz clock cycle. The last couple years have seen the death of Moore's law, which predicted the number of transistors on an IC would double every 18 months. They can't do it anymore because there's a heat barrier, so they had to resort to making multiple cores and pretending it was one "chip." It is hard to make software for and generates even more total heat than it would if they had just stuck with single core without making it any faster. But they can't do that, because the industry expects Moore-compliant products.
Look at any pc on the market today, are there any cpu's clocked faster than 4 ghz yet? No, and they don't even sell them that fast, you have to overclock them. Every new pc is at least a dual nowadays, up to 4 and it looks like they'll be going 8 soon. About to finally catch up with the ps3 except their multithreading still isn't as advanced as the Cell's is, or as good for running 3d game engines either.
So what will they make a ps4 out of? A new Cell with 16 cores? Don't bet on developers lining up to make games for that. It would also overheat like crazy. Circuit width tech is down to 45nm now, but it took three years, since the original ps3's on 90nm. That's not a very fast increase, it would never make a 16-core console realistic. Likewise if Microsoft wanted to take xbox to the next level they'd have to release some kind of 8-core goliath, it would make the red ring of death look like an ice cream social at the south pole. The tech is not there; there is no design. Not even a concept.
Now, the Wii can and probably will upgrade, but that's not gonna make it the first of the next generation. It will make it the last of the current generation, just as Wii is the last of the last generation. The only next gen part of Wii is the controller, and that is an accessory. The console is a 700mhz single-core putz. It is no more powerful than your original xbox. It can't output HD, it has no web browser, it is limited in a zillion ways. If they redesign it to have a dual-core at the standard 2 to 3ghz, then it will outperform the old wii by leaps and bounds. But it will only be a current-gen console. I don't expect them to upgrade the cpu though, only the graphics chip to make it HD capable. Because Nintendo has long feared the US digital transition when suddenly zillions of people will have new HDTV's and realize standard def really kind of sucks.
The console that will last the longest is the ps3, because it has the most advanced cpu and also the best gpu of the bunch. (400gflops compared to 240gflops for xbox's gpu). They're wasting their time on motion sensing right now, which the ps3 has done since it was released and also with the playstation eye, and xbox knows it can't make a better console yet either so it's trying to get your grandmother to play too. Motion sensing control is a joke.
There will not be any real current gen consoles released before the year 2013. Only portables.
Why do movie theatres still use old projectors with film?
Bob
Well we are in the new era so why not digital projectors? I know there are digital ones but not very much ones out yet
Answer
It's merely taking time for the multiplexes to acquire and install digital projectors. The digital projectors in theaters aren't the little briefcase-sized ones used for company presentations or home theaters; they're large machines the size of refrigerators, many of them capable of projecting four times the number of pixels of HDTVs, and they cost tens of thousands of dollars each. They also require an upgrade to the screen; so the total cost of upgrading a single theater is about $70,000.
So to go from a standard that was used by EVERY theater for practically a century and completely convert over to a new one is a process that has been (and is going to) take a lot of time. Of the roughly 36,000 cinema screens in the U.S., about 16,000 have converted to digital as of 2010, with a plan to have 20,000 converted by 2013 as part of a billion-dollar project initiated in 2009.
It's merely taking time for the multiplexes to acquire and install digital projectors. The digital projectors in theaters aren't the little briefcase-sized ones used for company presentations or home theaters; they're large machines the size of refrigerators, many of them capable of projecting four times the number of pixels of HDTVs, and they cost tens of thousands of dollars each. They also require an upgrade to the screen; so the total cost of upgrading a single theater is about $70,000.
So to go from a standard that was used by EVERY theater for practically a century and completely convert over to a new one is a process that has been (and is going to) take a lot of time. Of the roughly 36,000 cinema screens in the U.S., about 16,000 have converted to digital as of 2010, with a plan to have 20,000 converted by 2013 as part of a billion-dollar project initiated in 2009.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment