MTV Xbox 360 Its on now DISCUSS

Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 8:14 pm

Seriously, I would have enjoyed that much more if they had Bill Gates on stage speaking in 100% tech talk. It might have even hyped me a bit. The MTV showing was that bad.

Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 8:22 pm

I agree not sure who is getting fired right now at MS for that marketing fuck up!! I watched it with a couple of friends and we were blazed which resulted in us laughing our asses off it was like the mtv music awards for the 360 and they showed a total of about 1 minute of actual gameplay footage, and yeah some of the games must be early in development like that tony hawk... looked like ass the background textures were shit, Madden (only renders) looked good, PDZ was ok doesn't look nearly complete... everything was renders or ingame cinematics, GR3 was sick though that was the higligt for me as it did look really really good! Oh and that white lcd tv that was conencted to the 360 at the MS offices was sick! all in all I give that show a 5 out of 10 Rolling Eyes

Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 9:02 pm

I just watched it Via a torrent download.

Jeez it was dire, the ourcolony video was SO much better, I mean like 200% better.

The pimp my ride Xbox 1 mod was quite cool, I mean isnt that like illegal under the DMCA Wink

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 12:55 am

If you have it recorded, watch the Gears of War two-second clip again. Notice the lag? Thats what, 15 FPS? 10?

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 1:55 am

the current systems are alphas?
so im pretty sure its gonna be faster

Team XLink Administrator Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 4061

Ok, i caught this last night...2 bands that look like they need a good wash, the crowd was full of skanks ( if thats the right word)

And who the hell was that woman/girl/student who thought she was some super model walking through the crowd like she owned the place, reaches in her bag and puts the 360 on the table.....i waited for that?

Are you fucking joking me?...MS put down the crack pipe...we want to see hardware, games, specs, not 2 bands that are so un rock n roll that its pathetic...hey lets mix some gary numan with some lame rock,.what have you got??? the killers....yeah...the name speaks for itself. i dont even want to mention the snow patrol...great name, chase that cocaine boys!

And then we get so called superstars, "im a gamer" LMAO...sure you are.

MS..next time speak to the gamers.

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 9:25 am

Urm, sorry, I know it was crap, but what did you expect from MTV? They're going to create lots of hype and a great aura by showing a few Star Wars geeks with Pringles crumbs on their tshirts walking down the cat-walk?

It was MTV for pity's sake, of course it was never going to be about gamers. It was just a launch party, not an E3 conference (which would OBVIOUSLY be catered for gamers).

Wait for E3's videos, I'm sure they'll have more for us there.

Team XLink Administrator Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 4061

yeah i know that dfunked, was dissapointing though.

Roll on E3

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 4:20 pm

TeXLink @ Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am wrote:

Praxis, you're trying so hard to hate this thing Very Happy

Nah I just hated the MTV showing Laughing

Quote:

I agree, the MTV show was a load of ass, but the unit looks well designed, and it's certainly got some kick under the bonnet. 3.2ghz * 3 * 2 = 19.2ghz straight line speed - that's sick..

Sorry but how in the world did you do this botched math? Not trying to insult you here, but...what the heck?

2 hardware threads is not 2 processors. It's Hyperthreading. Your Pentium 4 processor has it. Or if you have an AMD processor, it has it too. All it does is let it run two threads at once. NOT double speed.

And..."straight line speed"? GHz is not even a measurement of speed...these processors are stripped down pretty well. It's a very nice peice of work, but per GHz they aren't individually that fast.

I'm FAR more impressed with the graphics card (the R500 card...drool) than the processor. It's niiiiice. That graphics card is whats sick.

It should easily outperform the Radeon X800 XT by 2x or more.
Further it's been specificly designed to do AA at high resolution.

We're talking AA 4x at 1280x720 at 60 frames per second OR AA 4x at 1920x1080 at 30 frames per second (depends what type of HDTV you have). That's INSANE. And absolutely beautiful Very Happy

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 4:21 pm

djveeman @ Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am wrote:

the current systems are alphas?
so im pretty sure its gonna be faster

yeah, the game was an alpha and the hardware used to render those videos was a dev kit (a PowerMac G5) with two processors instead of three, that explains the lag, but if they were that far behind they really should not have shown the laggy video.

It should be smooth when it finally comes out.

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 4:34 pm

Praxis @ Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am wrote:

If they were that far behind they really should not have shown the laggy video.

exactly... its like a car company showing a half a car Rolling Eyes

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 5:28 pm

Schism @ Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am wrote:

Praxis @ Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am wrote:

If they were that far behind they really should not have shown the laggy video.

exactly... its like a car company showing a half a car Rolling Eyes

Yeah, exactly.

Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 0

Quote:

Sorry but how in the world did you do this botched math? Not trying to insult you here, but...what the heck?

2 hardware threads is not 2 processors. It's Hyperthreading. Your Pentium 4 processor has it. Or if you have an AMD processor, it has it too. All it does is let it run two threads at once. NOT double speed.

And..."straight line speed"? GHz is not even a measurement of speed...these processors are stripped down pretty well. It's a very nice peice of work, but per GHz they aren't individually that fast.

I'm FAR more impressed with the graphics card (the R500 card...drool) than the processor. It's niiiiice. That graphics card is whats sick.

It should easily outperform the Radeon X800 XT by 2x or more.
Further it's been specificly designed to do AA at high resolution.

We're talking AA 4x at 1280x720 at 60 frames per second OR AA 4x at 1920x1080 at 30 frames per second (depends what type of HDTV you have). That's INSANE. And absolutely beautiful

Lol.. interesting. Well, for starters, "2 hardware threads is not two processors" - I'm fully aware of that - where did I say it represented 2 processors? Secondly, the term "straight line speed", when applied to processors, implies the ability of the hardware to process single-op instructions as fast as possible. This processor configuration *can* process single-op instructions at the equivalent of 19.6Ghz. You state that having 2 hardware channels "allows 2 threads to run at once" and "does not double speed". In actuality, neither is true. The two threads can run at once, depending on *what they're doing* - ALU stuff, or memory access yes, they should run at once, effectively doubling the speed of the processor, but in other situations, that "parallelism" isn't there. To summarise, it's not as good as having 2 seperate cores, but for many types of instruction it will perform just as well. Single-tick stuff will double in speed. Fact. I suggest you do a little research on hardware threads, as opposed to questioning my ability to multiply together 3 numbers Smile

The graphics card may or may not be sick. It depends on how exactly the unified shaders work - we've never seen one before, to my knowledge, and they might suck (although I doubt it). The thing which appeals most to me, as a (albeit novice) 3D programmer, is the ability to program shaders using C-style-language.

TD

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 8:04 pm

TheDaddy @ Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am wrote:

Quote:

Sorry but how in the world did you do this botched math? Not trying to insult you here, but...what the heck?

2 hardware threads is not 2 processors. It's Hyperthreading. Your Pentium 4 processor has it. Or if you have an AMD processor, it has it too. All it does is let it run two threads at once. NOT double speed.

And..."straight line speed"? GHz is not even a measurement of speed...these processors are stripped down pretty well. It's a very nice peice of work, but per GHz they aren't individually that fast.

I'm FAR more impressed with the graphics card (the R500 card...drool) than the processor. It's niiiiice. That graphics card is whats sick.

It should easily outperform the Radeon X800 XT by 2x or more.
Further it's been specificly designed to do AA at high resolution.

We're talking AA 4x at 1280x720 at 60 frames per second OR AA 4x at 1920x1080 at 30 frames per second (depends what type of HDTV you have). That's INSANE. And absolutely beautiful

Lol.. interesting. Well, for starters, "2 hardware threads is not two processors" - I'm fully aware of that - where did I say it represented 2 processors?

Hm, well then I don't see where you did some of the math.

You did 3.2 * 3 * 2 = 19.2 GHz. That's 3.2 GHz multiplied by three cores multiplied by 2. What is that last 2? I assumed you were multiplying by 2 threads. If that wasn't it...why did you multiply by an extra 2?

Quote:

You state that having 2 hardware channels "allows 2 threads to run at once" and "does not double speed". In actuality, neither is true. The two threads can run at once, depending on *what they're doing* - ALU stuff, or memory access yes, they should run at once, effectively doubling the speed of the processor, but in other situations, that "parallelism" isn't there. To summarise, it's not as good as having 2 seperate cores, but for many types of instruction it will perform just as well. Single-tick stuff will double in speed. Fact. I suggest you do a little research on hardware threads, as opposed to questioning my ability to multiply together 3 numbers Smile

I'm only questioning the third number.
So if I'm understanding you right, you're saying that it can run the equivilant instructions of twice as many processors because of the two hardware threads. But that is not reflective of actual performance, correct?

EDIT: One thing you may not be aware of. According to Anandtech, this processor probably the same as the PowerPC core that is in the Cell, simply because that is the only PowerPC processor that runs at >3 GHz, except that there are three of them. So assuming they are the same processor, which is a reasonable assumption, this PowerPC in the XBox 360 is an in-order execution processor. Additionally the specs mention 2 instructions per clock cycle.

Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 5:27 am

some more perfect dark footage

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=XBOX_360_LAUNCH_DUTCH

Kai Beginner Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 8 Location: Canada

now that show was worse then the spike tv vgas..........The highlight was the hot chick walking down the isle and putting the machine on the table, for me anyways........they must have payed frodo alot to put up with that crap he looked like he was forcing every smile at those half rate celebs trying to play "deathmatch" lol.. They only killed a couple walls.... Evil or Very Mad

Kai Admirer Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 324

http://deezee.net/nuke/html/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=3

there some mroe videos of the WTV special i have it cut up into sections
and i cut out the stupid shit. (most of it)

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:36 am

u think shes hot...but did you see what was betwen her legs? i did Shocked

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:15 am

Anyone uploaded the entire unaltered show yet?

*Wants as much info about the 360 as possible, even if it's surrounded by music made by a band that M$ hired and therefore probably sounds like a dog crapping.