EA reveal PS3 and Xbox Next screens

OMFG that can't be real. Those graphics are just stupid. way beyond anything we're playing now.

I think I am going to pre-order for XBOX2/next today!

that's McNabb's number but it don't look nothing like him!!! Ah, they can do better!! But seriously, i had no intention of buying ps3 or xbox next right away but if the games look like that i will have to reconsider that.

OMG it looks like its real! especialy the porche pic!!! I want 1 of those!

hi all. yes it can be on the xbox 2. you see doom 3 on a good pc. on ATI X850 XT. it look goood .lol good ok ok it not a good game. but it look good so yes it can be on the xbox 2. the xbox 2 will be 256 bit. or 512 bit .the xbox is 128 bit so y not we will see like halo 3 and PGR 3 and DOA 4 we all no it going to be xbox 2 win.

P.S i like my xbox oooo and my pc.

on xbox live my name is "XCS G LEE"

The car picture is probably real, but I'm calling bullsh*t on the football picture. It looks like a pre-rendered picture to me.

As stated before, does anybody remember the Raven demos for the XBOX? Pshh... we never saw graphics like that during XBOX's entire life cycle.

^what he said or something....the early pictures will be better than what we can expect, so lick the drool up because chances are they won't be as good as that

holy crap that looks awesome

Stop it with the "It looks real!" because it doesn't. It looks closer to reality than the games that do now.
The trees do not look real at all, it is easy to tell its just a bunch of planes, they are not even down to doing individual leaves, stems, or anything yet. You can't even see dust coming from where the tires are meeting the road. The rims on the tires don't seem to be reflecting anything, in the real world everything reflects something, changing the color slightly.

In the bottom shot there is no snow hitting any of the players, and the green jersey looks like it is made of plastic.

I really doubt the resolution is nearly as high as the human eye can tell. It is really hard to pick out individual pixels on a 22 inch screen with a resolution of 2048x1536. We'll have to be in the millions x millions before you can't tell the difference on a 36 inch TV, typical high definition is around 1280x1024.

There are so many things that hardware simply will not be able to handle, even if it is a billion times more powerful than it is now it still would not be able to produce real life graphics. If the time comes that there is a system powerful enough it is going to take a massive amount of time to put all the detail in for artists.

All I really wanted to point out is it will be a long, long time before graphics are as good real life, they probably never will. I'm sick of people saying they look like real life.

Those graphics are a huge improvement though.

Am I the only one who noticed that whole "Pre paid" garbage? This is obviously a scam to get people to pay set prices on money cards (much the same way arcades do nowadays) to ensure people spend money they might not even use. What the hell?

Oh yeah, EA already stated theose pics are mock shots for upcoming Madden and Need for Speed games.They stated thay ARE pre rendered and they're only to demonstrate what they hope to achieve. RAGHAGHGAHGAHGAHGAHGAHGA-DUH!!!!

http://www.freephotoipods.net rocks!

Allow me to explain:
THESE ARE NOT IN-GAME GRABS FROM ACTUAL FUNCTIONING BUILDS OF NEXT-GEN GAMES.
These are pre-rendered concept shots of what EA expects next-gen games to look like, based on known tech specs. These are NOT actual demos running in real time.

Oh, and I love how this post tries to make it sound like EA doesn't care about the Revolution. :/ I know you all think "Xbox 2 will destroy everything," but it won't. Just wait till you see the Revolution!

Actually, it didn't look very real 2 me. Both of the pictures looked like paintings...

Freestuff, take your capitalism else where.

Cedge I think I already explained that, and if you really think that going onto a rival console's forum and making comments about consoles you don't hardly know about and try to persuade people you are gladly mistaken. So don't try.

I Hope it can emulate alot more arcade games and n64 stuff better than the current xbox, not that what it can do now is not exrememly impressive.

The football photo looks as if it was taken out of a real life football game.

Ummm....Dude chill out. The graphics look good but yes they are not in game photos. Oh and the rims on the car are not crome so they don't reflect, its on pavement so not much dust to kick up and the leaves are too far away to show detail on a small screen but there is excellent lighting and reflection shown in the car's paint job and window.

xbox2 visuals amazing i cant wait for xbox2 launch this two screens so real

You can tell the football picture isnt real time rendering since it has motion blur - especially on the dudes hand. computer graphics dont do motion blur, movies and tv do. thats why your average movie or tv program only runs at 24FPS but still looks smooth as silk - motion blur.

I hope that is need for speed hot pursuit 3

cause the underground series suck's.

They're artist's renderings on what might be possible. In other words, completely fake.

Actually, I need to correct you there. Computers can and DO have the ablility to do motion blur. Please do a bit of research before blurting out mis-information.

I have a couple things to say. First of all, that top pic could definitely be X-Box 2, but the bottom one, provided it IS a real-time shot, could only be PS3. And don't ever say it's impossible for videogames to do motion blur, anything's possible. Think of when you were still playing PS1 and the cinemas looked so much better than the gameplay and you wished it was the other way around. Well, with PS2 and X-box it is. PS2 and X-box both allow cinema-quality graphics, which motion blur can be programmed into somewhere along the lines. It usually isn't because it doesn't look realistic. But for one example, Need for Speed Underground displays a ton of motion blur to hide a low framerate.

But, here are the system specs for the Next-Box and PS3.

You can think of X-Box 2 as a really suped up Apple G5. It has triple 64-bit processing power, as opposed to the G5's dual, and an incredibly high-powered graphics card. The coin that will determine what chip company Microsoft will turn to (Nvidia or ATI) has been tossed, but it's still in the air. Microsoft also plans to completely ditch their system's hard drive. Why? Because they're trying to be like Nintendo for some really stupid reason. They probably won't go through with it, but it's a pretty powerful rumor. So, there you go. That's X-Box 2 in all its glory. I've already seen very impressive screenshots from the next Morrowind game that will be the first game released on X-Box 2. Impressive? yes. The amount of bump-mapping and lighting effects the machine can carry out is incredible. However, is it something I've never seen before? Absolutely not. PCs will quickly over-power the X-Box 2 and it will become obselete. Halo 3, of course, will save it. It is also said that Halo 3 is supposed to launch the same day PS3 does.

While were on the subject, PS3 is going to take a bite out of the X-Box 2 and spit it right out into video game history. Don't take me as a Sony fanboy. Really, I'm an X-Box guy, but the Playstation 3 is revolutionary. It's prototype, developed two years ago, was based on the processing of dime-sized liquid silicon cells that each had a 1 ghz processor of their own. The cells themselves were processed by a CPU that took 400 million dollars for IBM, Toshiba, and Sony to research and develop. The machine featured 250 cells in all. The resulting CPU Clock-Speed? 250 ghz. X-Box doesn't even run at 1 ghz.
OH AND BY THE WAY, THE X-BOX IS NOT 128 BIT, IT BOASTS A 32-BIT 733 MHZ INTEL PENTIUM III PROCESSOR AND A 64 MB NVIDIA GEFORCE X, CUSTOM-MADE FOR THE CONSOLE. The GeForce X is about as powerful as a GeForce 3 computer graphics chip.
OH AND ONE MORE THING, DOOM 3 IS COMING OUT ON X-BOX IN A FEW MONTHS. NOT X-BOX 2.
Back to PS3, you can compare it to the movies. Think human brain when thinking about its hardware. It basically has unlimmited processing power. 250 ghz is REALLY unnecessary, but very possible.

So, that top screenshot could easily be X-Box Next or 2 or whatever you want to call it. But that bottom shot, if it's a real-time raw shot, is definitely PS3. And that looks a lot like Donovan McNabb, I'm looking at his picture right now and comparing it.

In limited agreement with locopuyo, it's true that a videogame will probably never look exactly like real life. But as the hardware evolves, the graphics will become more and more dependent on the programmer's/artist's capabilities. Eventually, a system's hardware WILL be able to handle real-life-cinema quality graphics, but it's doubtable that any programmers would ever be able to achieve that level of detail in their creations.

Is there anything else I need to say...uh...oh...
Now that I read up a little, perhaps both shots are for upcoming games that will launch on both systems. EA is not a first-party developer, so they'll make their games for multiple systems. However, it is still most likely that the shots are from PS3 because EA usually makes their games primarily on Sony's systems. Either way, the PS3's game graphics will be much more capable. If they are the same as X-box 2 for a while, it's simply because the programmers aren't taking full advantage of the hardware yet.

And I still highly doubt that bottom shot could be done on X-Box 2.

Ask me questions, I know all.
~Harry

Not impressed, I think next generation graphics cards could do nearly has good as that now so sorry I think they can do better than that, not complaining just stating that I think they can do better.

11l1venom1l11 you are definatly a PS2/3 fanboy, do you really think no matter how good Sonys PS3 is going to be that the biggest most successfull company in the world Microsoft is going to let Sony build a better console, I think not, Sony intends to use many redundant servers to increase it's processing power and will only be able to do this online so you better have a good connection if you want to get the best out of it or it will be bottleneck city for you.

If the truth be known I do not expect there to be much between Xbox2 and PS3 because both are aware of the others intention to better the other so what we will be left with are two kick ass consoles no doubt, what will be the deciding factor is not even the games because Xbox now has many happy publishers ready and willing to provide, In my opinion it will be the service that will be the deciding factor and Microsoft have shown with Xboxlive that they are already one step ahead.

On a final note using redundant servers for extra processing power is not a new concept and will make very little difference to Sonys machine, but like I said offline Xbox2 and PS3 will be so good that it will be a year or two after they have been released before we will really know which is the best, plus the the fact that the software will have to match the hardware capabiltys to truly utilize the extra power.

Personally I think that everyone with opinons about the graphic capability of either system should hold their wonderful opinions until they are out in force. However, regardless how powerful they are special Efx makes or breaks all system...and bump mapping only can do about so much. But they do look good..are they CG? In game? Who knows? I cant wait for ACTUAL footage.Period.

besides....I already know that the PS3 should very well consist of a hard disc somewhere under its hood. And also that I have 2 questions that have yet to be answered....1.)Is the Xbox going to be able to emulate anything at all? Even if the new GPU doesnt emulate the Nvidia instructions perfectly.....do we all remember what happened in Vagrant Story(And MGS1)? Oh texture mapping got all screwed up and the Ps2 wasnt too much different from the original PSX in design anyway. 2.) And is their going to be a HD or Flash memory? Any Sega Saturn owner knows that you had to change the Lithium cell in order to keep data stored forever...I'd say I rather deal with a HD than Flash memory anyday.

If you want to talk to me more, then thats fine...just keep postin'

roduts, venom - stop talking.

Venom:

Cell processors typically use four to sixteen cores per processor, not the 100 you brought up. Gamespot specifically mentions that a game console would likely use 16 cores. The processing capabilities of Cell are amazing, yes, but you've got an incredibly bad idea of what's possible and what's likely.

We're nearing the end of the era where processing speed is going to be measured in Hz. Already that doesn't tell you much about the processor anymore, as Athlon processors are generally on par with P4s that have much higher clock rates. The statement "The resulting CPU clock speed? 250Ghz". Is not only misleading, it's patently untrue. It's also quite meaningless in a multi-core environment like the one cell creates.

In addition to all of that, I should point out that the final specifications for either the Xbox2 or the PS3 are FAR from completed, and that you make yourself out to be an enormous fool by pretending that they are and you know about them.

Roduts:

Don't talk as if you know things when you don't. "Sony intends to use many redundant servers to increase its processing power"? Good god, who taught you about computers? If you knew anything, you'd know that any number of "redundant servers" (if the term meant anything to begin with) wouldn't affect the system's processing power in the slightest, and the very idea of having increased performance ONLY when you're online is enough to make even the least knowledgeable tech laugh.

What exactly were you thinking they'd do? Send you more CPU speed through your cable modem?

I would like to clear some things, one person said, xbox's graphics card. Nivida X is as powerful as a gefoce 3. It is actually more powerful because it has pixel and vertex shaders of a Geforce 4.

What console is this for? I'm assuming xbox next, I mean last I heard xbox next is the only one with programming systems being avaliable. I'm pretty sure sony doesn't have one. without one it is impossible to make one because sony architect is so different.

The answer is, what console was this made on, if it was. Which I highly doubt it was made by any, it just concept art.. XBOX NEXT!

roduts:

Actaully you're probably right, if this is what EA predicts then it is probably better hahaha, cause when has EA ever made anything to max out graphics?

This is joke by the way, but, it is also serious.

"Roduts:

Don't talk as if you know things when you don't. "Sony intends to use many redundant servers to increase its processing power"? Good god, who taught you about computers? If you knew anything, you'd know that any number of "redundant servers" (if the term meant anything to begin with) wouldn't affect the system's processing power in the slightest, and the very idea of having increased performance ONLY when you're online is enough to make even the least knowledgeable tech laugh.

What exactly were you thinking they'd do? Send you more CPU speed through your cable modem?"

Don't smart mouth me fella, if you do your research these are actually Sony's words not mine, the redundant server issue was brought up by Sony and IBM not me and it is possible to utilize the extra processing power online but once offline you are limited to the offline capabilitys, or maybe you think perhaps your Xbox powers Xboxlive.

Psychonaut this is for you:

http://www.esj.com/Columns/article.aspx?EditorialsID=115

For those that don't wish to use the link that I have given 'Psychonaut' to update is knowledge of redundant servers here is a explantion straight from the horses mouth.

What do you get when you cross a peer-to-peer (p-to-p) network (mostly used for trading pirated music and pornography) with a highly redundant server cluster (mostly used for mission-critical applications in Fortune 500 companies)?

The answer: grid computing. Ever since Seti@Home burst onto the scene in 1997, pretty much everyone with a desktop PC at work or home has been aware of how unused computing cycles can be used for various distributed computing projects. Despite the continuing race between Intel and AMD to deliver faster, more capable CPUs, far more computing cycles are spent idling between requests than actually doing anything.

Today's local-area networks (LANs) often have interconnect speeds that rival yesterday's supercomputers. In effect, a corporate network is a supercomputer, lacking only a mechanism for coordinating the activity of all its nodes. Today it doesn't matter that Bob's computer is sitting idle while he's at lunch while Amy, in the office next door, is tapping her fingers waiting for Excel to finish crunching numbers. When her hard disk fills up with those monster spreadsheets, the 20GB of empty space on Bob's system isn't going to help at all. While the two systems are connected in the sense that they can access the same resources, they do each other no good when it comes to computational power or storage.

Grid computing aims to change this, and its backers believe that its impact on computing could equal or exceed that of the Internet. Problems that are insoluble today could be a piece of cake in a grid-enabled world, while at the same time decentralized storage could offer a whole new level of performance and reliability to corporate networks.

The grid concept is really just an adaptation of the tried-and-true cluster concept. By moving the edge of the clusters out of the server room, grid aims to deliver many benefits of clustering to user devices.

Of course, every new technology promises to change the world, wash your car and balance your checkbook. However, I think grid really does have the potential to deliver on its big promises. So do many industry heavyweights, including IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun and Hewlett-Packard.


Powering Up Grid
Today, grid computing is very much in its infancy. However, its promise is so compelling that some companies are already rolling out early implementations. For instance, Pacific Life Insurance this year went with Entropia's DCGrid platform to get supercomputer-level computational power for its risk modeling system—without the expense of a supercomputer.

Grid computing isn't just for stuffed shirts and those with pocket protectors. Sony has announced that PlayStation 3 (PS3), scheduled for release in 2005, will use grid computing to deliver a huge performance improvement over PlayStation 2. While it's unclear exactly how grid is being applied in PS3, IBM's involvement in this initiative implies that it's more than just marketing hype.

If all of this sounds a bit like the p-to-p applications out there (think Gnutella), it's no coincidence. While it's clear that some central coordination is needed for grid computing, maximizing performance and redundancy means using a p-to-p model to at least some degree. The issues of scalability and security that first appeared in p-to-p applications are also cropping up for grid computing.

Finding its Bearings
Like many new and revolutionary technologies, grid is largely being held up by constant revision and improvements to the lowest layers of the technology. A few years ago, it was enough of a triumph for researchers to learn how to efficiently divide up an application's workload for distributed computing. Today, debate and development center around the standards that grid-enabled devices will use to communicate with each other. In this era of XML and Web services, most efforts are headed in the standards direction.


The Global Grid Forum (GGF) is at the center of these efforts. Membership in the GGF reads like a combination of the Fortune 500 and the venture capital section of Red Herring magazine: On one hand there's Boeing, Raytheon and Ford (in addition to the aforementioned computing giants); on the other hand, you have the likes of Entropia and VA Linux Systems—relatively small but significant upstarts.

Like most technology development or evangelist organizations, the GGF operates several types of working groups, each one creating the protocols and definitions necessary to the overall grid initiative. Fortunately—and you might want to knock on wood here—it looks like grid will arrive as a unified, open standard that will be conducive to vendor interoperability, the lower costs associated with competition, and quicker fixes for security issues.

We're just beginning to contemplate the business implications of grid computing. Larger companies will likely find that they don't have a need for all of the processing power of their own grid, and could generate revenue by leasing time on their “supercomputer.” Likewise, grid may have an effect on the type of workstations that businesses buy. Keep your eyes open as grid moves closer to real-world deployment.

you guys are all nerds

Yay, fanboy fighting!

DANCE PUPPETS, DANCE!

Seriously, I am probably going to be swindled into buying both. Good times.

GO NINTENDO!!!

I CANNOT WAIT FOR NINTENDO REVOLUTION!!!

Distributed computing has nothing to do with "redundant servers" - I'll admit I didn't know that Sony planned to use distributed computing for the PS3, nor do I think it has any practical application for gaming, but we'll see how it pans out. In any case, your terminology was way off. Distributed computing has commonly been used for large-scale computations such as finding 10 million digit prime numbers or doing gaussian regressions on magnetic spectra. I can't see it being practical for rapid-fire calculations like consoles do - the bandwidth requirements would be large, to say the least. But then, who knows?

ghsfghfgh

fjgffgg