Guess what, the majority of games these days are under 8gb. XD The largest games are still under 20gb, GTA IV is one of the biggest games, nearly 17gb.
I don't think developers will be making big budget games as often as they used to, so most games will probably remain under 8gb (X360 discs hold 9gb btw). So it's kind of irrelevant that PS3 discs can hold 50gb. By the time game data takes up that much space, the PS3 will be a dinosaur.
@DILDOlover Still not a whole lot of games tho. Most of those are PS3 exclusive too.
Not sure how they fit RAGE on an X360 disc, unless it had multiple discs. I just checked Steam, and my RAGE install is indeed close to 22gb! Larger than GTA IV.
@RalphCQ Of course PS3 exclusives are going to use more space, they aren't limited by the 360. RAGE on the 360 was on 3 DVDs and used like 27GB. Must have cost Zenimax a fortune since Microsoft charges up the ass if you use more then one disc...
@RalphCQ Yeah, but Microsoft would have stuck with DVD anyways. They could have gone with HDDVD but they wanted to keep the launch price as low as possible.
@Megatronicful not more powerful, just more organized, just like a calculator does things our brain have the power to do, but can't because lack of organization and it's dynamic linking memory. something along the lines....
pc don't have god of war 3 uncharted 1&2&3 killzone 2&3 infamous and more why ibay a pc rig that worht 1000$ and ican play the same game with 249$ + bluray player
@SADE050 My PC is a 400-500$ custom build... It can play Blu-ray DVDs and run BF3 on medium-high... You might want to RESEARCH the cost of building a decent PC before pulling numbers out of your ass. Hell, I have a 500GB hard drive, just 50$.
PC > PS3 > Xbox 360
1. A PC is stronger in terms of hardware
2. Steam lets me shop for SUPERIOR versions of console games
3. A PC can do MUCH MORE than gaming
4. MUCH Less hackers and lag, with dedicated servers
@anatanokukki can i play vanquish . shadow the damned . mortal kombat 9 . red dead redemption , star ocean the last hope , yakuza , killzone 2 ,3 , resistance , uncharted , heavy rain , modnation , gt5 , forza 4 , gears of war 3 , infamous , god of war 3 , demons souls, dark souls , marvel vs capcom 3 , danted inferno , the darkness , metal gear on pc??????????
@SADE050 PS3 has dedicated servers, but not for all their games. In PC, almost all modern-day internet-compatible games utilize dedicated servers.
PS4 > i7 for a simple reason, a newly released console is as strong as an a medium-end PC on the year it's released. By the time the PS4 is released, the i7 would be ancient.
One year the PS4's release, mid-end PCs will again, dominate the consoles. If I had to guess, the PS4's GPU would probably be a GTX 500 family equivalent card.
@SADE050 You're an idiotic fanboy. It's people like you that make others look down on us as gamers. I never said I didn't like the PS3, it's my second primary console, and I said I own one.
About your other quote, the first two of those games are some of the best PC games. Starcraft II alone is one of the most famous games in the world. Almost every PC gamer has heard of Starcraft. Most gamers in general know about Starcraft. Stop pulling shit out of your mouth.
@anatanokukki This is incorrect. PC activists have been saying that since before the PS3 launched. They have been wrong ever since. The PS3 released when the Nvidia 7800 launched. We known that Intel has JUST caught up with the Cell processor, in the PS3, SP FLOPS with Sandy Bridge. The RSX is the equivalent of a 7900GT. That only proves your statement wrong. PC GPUs loses up to 50% of it's power, being in an open box environment to APIs that have to work across multi-PC setups
2. in some cases this is true, but consoles have many more games.
3. true (consoles also these days)
4. FALSE (except servers part)
BTW, having a Blu-ray drive doesn't mean the dev is making use of it. That is the PC curse. BF3 runs on the PS3 on basically PC medium-high setting. Plus, they could still go much further on PS3, if given the time. $250 for PS3:)
Did you put the 500GB HDD in your PS3? Some people put 1TB HDD in there.
@SADE050 Just like consoles don't have Starcraft series, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Civilization series, Hard Reset and many others. Every platform has their exclusives. And yes, a $250 console plays the same games but with much lower visual quality.
And no, people don't have to compare the PS3 with PCs from 2006 (the PS3 was not released in 2005). If I want a PC for gaming, I'm going to buy one today, not go back in time and buy one in 2006.
@SADE050 Hard Reset is a small, single-player game distributed on Steam, I'll give you that. The other three franchises I meantioned outsold all the PS3 exclusives except for Gran Turismo 5. So yes, a lot of people play those games.
Consoles are much better at gaming then pc for fuck sake thats what it's designed to do , everytime new consoles are released pc plays catch up now shut up .
@LYJManchesterUnited LMAOO ignorant statement by console gamers. I laugh every time i see comments like these. PC's are light years ahead of consoles and consoles will never catch up. All your games aren't even running at 1080p but you'll never know that. U fools
@MrNothingButAir shut up i have a pc for god's sake i prefer to game on a relaxing sofa from a distance not so fucking near . what im saying is every time a new console comes out it's technology is much better then the pc's so console's technology is infact innovative and better then pc's. wad a retard as if i dont game on my pc.
@LYJManchesterUnited maybe you don't realize that pcs are modular. why don't you get a wireless controller, and link your pc to your tv monitor? And games are made and designed on pc not on consoles. so pcs actually HAVE to be better. Pcs can be upgraded to become faster almost every month as new technology comes out. Consoles are now 3-4 years out of date, normal pcs now are already about 3 times faster. why dont you spend more money and get a 10x faster pc? Why not install a bluray drive...
@PlaneAU Designing certain elements of a game and running the entire game are two different things. Characters and other artistic things are done on the PC because you need a LOT of RAM. Yes, PCs top hardware is about 10x faster (really just the GPU). The PS3 Cell processor is at least on par with Sandy Bridge in most properly written game code.
People keep forgetting that Devs can get a LOT more power out of hardware in a closed box (console) than open PCs with the same hardware.
@LYJManchesterUnited Obviously your specs are just completely inferior, hence the misconception that PC is a crap platform. When a console is made, they compile very low powered tech to keep it cheap and to merely scrape the requirements of new games.
@LYJManchesterUnited You couldn't be more wrong. While the PC market aways affords you the very latest, high-end technology, consoles are built with much more limited per-unit budget, TDP and internal space to fit components. Consoles are released with hardware that rivals the mainstream PC market of the time, but still behind the high-end market. And with time, where PCs keep evolving while consoles don't, that distance only becomes larger.
@MrNothingButAir No PC game runs at the level of animations Uncharted 2 or 3 does. No PC games has the advanced A.I. that Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 does (awards back up what I'm saying). I haven't seen a PC games have DISCRETE 7.1 LPCM audio. PC game audio usually is 5.1 Dolby Digital audio sent to dedicated audio hardware to be blurred over the other two channels to make 7.1 audio. GPUs aren't suited to all tasks. ;)
However, PC wins at just about everything else. :)
@AscendedSaiyan3 Animations? Be mroe specific. Uncharted 2 and 3 graphically looks good but you can run that on a mid level gaming PC easy (if its ported). And it'll look better than PS3 b/c of the anti aliasing and the increase native resolution. Game was designed on PC, will run better. Crysis 1 have the best AI of any video game ever. Don't even try to argue with Uncharted and Killzone. If their AI was so great, why isn't Killzone being praised as much as COD. Audio card >PS3
@MrNothingButAir Saying animations IS being specific. Over 3500 animations blended on the fly by the CPU. Cell is just as strong as the highest end Sandy Bridge, when coded correctly. That rules out all mid-level gaming PCs right there. Killzone 2 won awards for ground breaking AI (after Crysis came out). Crysis AI was actually primitive. That goes to show you some people can't tell dynamic AI from scripted AI :) CoD shouldn't even be mentioned at all. U list PS2 level AI games.
@AscendedSaiyan3 "Cell" is a bullshit CPU. Its a marketing gimmick to make you want to buy the PS3. dont be fooled by a 4 year old single core CPU. It can't perform half the task of a Intel 2500K. PS3 = 4 year old system. If PC developers put in some effort, they can design a game way beyond the AI that of Killzone and the graphics of Uncharted. Oh yeah we have Crysis =)
@MrNothingButAir Wow, you really know nothing about the Cell processor and have come to spread misinformation and hate. Read the creators of the Cell processors words a few pages back. I qouted for some other guy that didn't know the Cell (PS3 ver) is a 8 core processor with almost twice the inner-core bandwidth of an i7 2500K and scales in a near linear fashion. The key is fitting your code in the 256KB Local Store.
BTW, Crysis 1 is available on the PS3 now via PSN. ;)
@AscendedSaiyan3 First of all, Crysis is available on the PS3 as a version ported to CryEngine 3. The original Crysis, running on the much more demanding CryEngine 2, would never run on a current-generation console.
Second, saying Cell is on par with Sandy Bridge processors are one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard around here. Cell does not have eight cores, it has ONE core with eight additional SIMD units.
@NewLynxS Not you again with your misinformation! Yeah, we all know game engines get worst over different versions/iterations, right?! SMH. Also, you keep bring up the same points I already killed pages ago. Almost nothing you type is accurate or based on any facts. Just re-read what I typed to these same incorrect posts you said before (pages back). Nothing has changed.
Cell's EIB does offer a very high bandwidth, but unlike usual x86 processors, it's a single large-area bus used by ALL the structures inside Cell simultaneously. That means the PPE plus its memory controller, the eight SPEs (seven on the PS3) and the two external FlexIO buses, all at once. So although the EIB offers up to 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth, dividing this by the twelve components gives you a measly 25.6 GB/s bandwidth for each.
That is not high internal bandwidth. That is not even high external bandwidth, since it's the exact same as a dual-channel DDR3-1600 setup.
Add to that the much older and less efficient microarchitecture, the much older intruction sets (AVX, a recent game changer for FLOPS performance, is obviously absent on Cell) and the much lower transistor count, you have a processor that can only do a fraction of what a modern Sandy Bridge, Thuban or Bulldozer chip can.
Finally, it's always interesting to point out how, in December 2009, a Cell processor (based on a microarchitecture from 2005) would cost just $37.73, according to an iSuppli report about the then recently launched PS3 Slim. In comparison, Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer chips (based on microarchitectures from 2010 and 2011 respectively) can cost well over $200. You must be REALLY gullible and naïve to believe Cell is a faster processor.
This video has quite a few factual errors that I see the need to correct... Firstly, it sort of implies that Blu-ray means higher detail screen resolution gaming, but in reality this is simply false. Secondly, a standard DVD has 4.7 GB, a dual-layer DVD has 8.54 GB. Also 7 0f the 8 cores have no direct access to memory so I don't see why it claims that it can access data easily. This is why games which use all 8 cores don't look as fucking amazing as you would expect. The design is inefficient.
Does anyone else find it strange that Intel stop posting single precision numbers about it's processors a short time after the Cell started make supercomputer headlines? Now, they only post double precision numbers (where the original Cell processor, in the PS3, is the weakest). I find this to be interesting. Also, at Intel's Sandy Bridge production size (32nm), Cell could have over 36 cores (not 4 to 8 cores) and produce over 1TFLOPS SP / 500GFLOPS DP(double precision). Interesting numbers.
@AscendedSaiyan3 the cell on the ps3 is pretty damn powerful and is equal to i5 or i7 but t loses in dot point processing, and it gains much more on single precision, and its like 3x the xenon and with the rsx which does 400 gflops and much more graphics processing than the 360 gpu iit can compete with an i5 with a gtx 520 and actually beat it in gaming and other stuff, im not really smart but I am smart enough to understand newlynxs is a troll bot
@iamgig9876 Yes, Cell loses terribly, to Core i7 Sandy Bridge, in areas not concerning gaming/multimedia applications. This is without question. The X360 GPU (Xenos), on the other hand, matches well with the RSX. It beats RSX pretty bad in vertex processing. However, 2 SPEs completely changes that by doubling it's vertex processing capacity. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 vertex processing was higher than anything on X360, so far. Yes, GTX520 w/ i5 beats PS3 except in A.I., animation, and audio.
@mikevanstaveren Funny how the PS2 outdid the Gamecube and Xbox put together by far even though they both have far superior hardware. Nintendo learned a lot from Sony when they made the Wii.
@mikevanstaveren You are correct on almost everything. Uncharted 2 was not expensive to code for, considering it's a AAA game. 18 months and $20 million. Uncharted 3 reaches new heights within 18 months and similar money.
Is this bullshit or what? I have invested about 160 hours into my Game of the Year Edition Fallout 3 and it started giving me the slowest gameplay ever. It won't run all the data(FUCK YOU CELL PROCESSOR BULLSHIT!). From incredible lag to freezing, to crashes, I haven't been able to play the game I once loved.
It finally ended up giving me a Yellow Light of Death.
sigh.... can I please have some thumbs up for sympathy?
@SHiTJuFro743 ts the developers fault the shoud have utilied all 7 spes in order to lower the heat on the processors, they were retarded enough to put al the unctions on a single spe and use the rsx to the max without assisting it with the cell processor look at bf3 dice said it will ook lmost like the pc version and with the new gameplay frm gdc 2011 they proved lok at fallout 3 they wre lazy nd didnt do nothing and broke your ps3 bf 3 will put in medium heat on all 6 spes =140 gflops= i7
@iamgig9876 I know, Bethesda was using some shoddy coding in their game and it would get worse the longer you play. (That's why I wouldn't even touch New Vegas, it's bad tech in the hands of a bad developer)
But at least they made a better one for Elder Scrolls Skyrim. WITCH LOOKS FUCKING SSWWEEEET!!
@iamgig9876 (I just noticed I spelled which wrong.)
I like many types of games. It just depends on whether or not it's good. (BF3 looks like it will be sweet.)
I can get into a good RPG, Racing, Fighting, Shooter, adventure, strategy, or puzzle game. It really just depends. Other than Battlefield, is there any other games you're excited for? *Please don't say MW3*
@SHiTJuFro743 hey how bout this if you kept your ps3 outside that dark tv holdrer thing, it would get ore air=get more vntilation= no more overheating nd prform the fan test once in a while it clears the dirt from theinside
@iamgig9876 what tv holder thing?? the one I don't have??? It's in the open..... -_-
Also, I have the original PS3, it doesn't run fan tests. :P
P.S. Do you know anything about the ps3??? It's insides, if you ever looked into this SHiT, are a bunch of junk. It's overheating because Sony wanted to save a nickel and fuck over the consumer by buying cheap ass thermal paste. (AKA, what keeps the CPU and GPU connected to the motherfucking heatsink!!) It's not my fault, numbnuts! LEARN GRAMMER BTW!!
@SHiTJuFro743 lol i keep it in a dark place and it never overeatss to ylod it only freeze s i pt on the ac and it goes away but sadly bf bc 2 is severly flaed on consoles (the only flaw is that i lose ll my data every single gun then it magically all coes back after a single death, (its not that anoying
@SHiTJuFro743 it costs like 90 dollars (or just use ps store to buy a waranty) to fix it or its simple to fix by reapplyin thermal paste and fixing the gpu b aplying alchohol
@iamgig9876 I'm already planning on fixing it myself. (That warranty bullSHiT is a jipp. I shouldn't have to spend so much extra money to the fucks that make bank off af using SHiTmaterials.) Bye now
What ps3 is this guy talking about He obviously never tryed to use the ps3s web browser or write a message while in a game. Multitasking at its finest???
this is bullshit PR trying to put down any other processor except the ps3's itself. come on, some guy talking in a smooth voice about how ever single processor is "nowhere near as good as a ps3's" because it can only do 1 task at a time? when the fuck did this happen? in the early 00's pentium 4's had not only timesharing (from about 30 years ago), but hyperthreading, and then dual/quad cores came along. Think....why havent pc's got 8 cores yet as standard? it isn't needed now, or even back then
@harper16 look kid bf3 and metro 2033 have shown te need for better processors, and dce have been sart enough to use theps3 to the max the ps3 doesnt have 8 cores lol it has processors he difference is that 8 cores is useless 8 processors can basically fuck up 8 cores thats why the 360 cant ven do uncharted 2 which is barely 60% the ps3s processors power
@iamgig9876 While it is true that the X360 can't run Uncharted 2 in it's original form, Uncharted 2 uses near 100% of the Cell's clock cycles. The developer just said they had a good bit of room to optimize that code to run faster on the Cell (basically, they could easily improve how much they could do with the same amount of clock cycles). Uncharted 3 is showing you the performance improvements they have come up with so far on the Cell and the rest of the PS3's architecture. :)
@harper16 Intel and AMD CAN'T have 8 cores, because their cores take up a lot more space. You can fit 4 SPEs/SPUs in the same space as 1 standard core from Intel/AMD/IBM. Not to mention an SPE/SPU draws around one-tenth the power of one of Intel/AMD/IBM standard core. To top all that off, Cell can typically get a LOT closer to it's theoretical max than Intel/AMD cores. Cell isn't built with legacy support in mind and Intel/AMD is also weighed down with that. It slows it down even further.
@dondonini my ceche01 can still play ps2.. software base emulation still pwns not to mention all of the hombrew nowadays ps3=all in one console once jailbreak
very few game developers fully utlise the cell processer the ones that do have to do there homework and it shows , port a game to the ps3 without optmising and you get a very poor port.
There would be time when microchip will design another microchip. And then a robot would build it. But what started it of? Our brain. Show a little respect. Thank you
the cell only has 1 real processor btw, and my i7 can handle 8 threads worth of info, vs the ps3's 6, and the xbox 360 cpu is a triple core cpu, with hyperthreading, so the 360 has more physical cores than the ps3, and it matches the ps3's spu count (no it doesent have 8, it has 6 available to devs)
@Madkillr05 Firstly you are comparing two different architectures, second you are comparing two different architectures that are from different time periods....of Course the i7 will be faster than the Cell. But you are incorrectly wrong regarding the 360 CPU. The Cell processor has more performane than the 360, regarding in tasks.
@iamgig9876 Stop being an idiot. Cell has one core and seven SIMD units. It can't "simulate" the performance of seven cores, a SIMD unit is just a fraction of what a core is. And your comparison to Core i7 processors was ridiculous. Core i7 processors achieve over 100 GFLOPS in DOUBLE PRECISION operations, while Cell achieves up to 179.2 GFLOPS in SINGLE PRECISION. In double precision, the entire Cell processor only achieves up to a measly 20.8 GFLOPS.
@NewLynxS it ahcieves 42 gflops from what i read in wikipedia and 6 gflops per simd unit and well at single precision it achieve 178 and aain rsx+cell can do much more than an i3 or i5 mid range, combined with thier own pus wih they come with and again cel+rsx can certainly do more than anything xenon+xenos no shut the fuk up and get out cause i see you in ever video that s a part of cell you are obviously a troll bot
@iamgig9876 "For double-precision floating point operations (...) Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 20.8 GFLOPS (1.8 GFLOPS per SPE, 6.4 GFLOPS per PPE)." - from Wikipedia
You do know how to read, right?
And of course RSX can do more than Intel embedded GPUs, they are very low-end models not at all meant for 3D rendering. But if you compare that to a $80 GPU like the HD6670 (768 GFLOPS in SP, not even counting the processor), RSX + Cell are left in the dust.
@NewLynxS That's completely true! It's the GPU and RAM that makes PC gaming superior...not the CPU. Plus, GPUs in PCs lose up to 60% of it's performance. In other words, a lesser GPU can end up having more performance in a closed environment (like consoles) than a more powerful GPU in a PC. This is do to APIs, etc. New generation of consoles take the performance numbers for the GPU and damn near double it, when trying to compare to PC GPUs. Plus, bandwidth to GPUs is a big factor too! :)
@NewLynxS Dr. Hofstee says Cell has 9 multi-purpose cores. Are you smarter than the team that created it? No, so Cell has 9 cores (in PS3 1 core is disabled and 1 core is for OS). Cell achieves 204GFLOPS in SP. DP is for scientific operations. In gaming, SP is where it's at. Core i7 bets Cell bad in DP ONLY. No Intel chip has been able to get within 70% of it's theoretical max. Cell has been able to achieve 97% of theoretical max. When comparing gaming use, Cell generally wins. Sorry. Research.
@AscendedSaiyan3 Your "research" is full of nonsense. In fact, that was one of the most ridiculous replies I got in months. PC GPUs don't "lose performance", console GPUs are not more powerful than their PC counterparts, neither do they double anything, and double precision is used everywhere, not just for scentific uses.
And if "Dr. Hofstee" said that Cell has nine cores, then "Dr. Hofstee" is an idiot. IBM's documentation clearly states it has ONE PowerPC core and eight parallel SIMD units.
@NewLynxS "although PC graphics are better than the console version-- developers can't tap into the PC's true potential because they can't program hardware directly at a low-level, forced to work through DirectX instead". "More than just co-processors, Dr. Hofstee said, the SPEs are FULLY-CAPABLE PROCESSING UNITS that are capable not only of running threads spawned off from a main program, but also running "single-core," scalar programs in their entirety". TO LEARN, JUST SEARCH THE QUOTES.
@AscendedSaiyan3 Low-level access provides minimal advantage compared to a standardized API, and they're mostly related to flexibility, not to performance. The additional processing power required to go through an API such as DirectX is more than diluted in face of modern hardware. The problem you mentioned was true a decade ago, not today.
And any processing unit can run threads and programs, that's not what makes a core. And SPEs are not cores, they are SIMD units just like GPU shaders.
@NewLynxS Any developer will tell you that not being able to code "to the metal" is a performance AND flexibility issue. That article is not old. It completely applies today and tomorrow.
Regarding the SPE cores, you must have skipped over this part..."but also running "single-core," scalar programs in their entirety." That is the end all statement that tells you it's a core. You don't have to believe that. You can continue to ignore the truths presented, but does not change the situation.
SPEs have no cache (and therefore, do data pattern predictors), no direct access to the system memory and a MUCH more limited instruction set, not to mention the fact that they can only run vectorized instructions (obviously, being SIMD units). Thus they are much more limited than a core both in terms of programming flexibility and in what can be accomplished with them.
@NewLynxS Talking about cache makes no sense, when discussing whether something is a core or not. That's just standard legacy architecture. Each SPE has DIRECT ACCESS to main memory through DMA calls. That is the only way the quote line, from the IBM Chief Architect, below could be true. You aren't making an argument against the SPEs being cores. You are making an argument against the SPEs being traditional core with a traditional architecture. We know SPEs/Cell isn't a traditional architecture
@AscendedSaiyan3 Having to go through DMA calls = no direct access.
And whether you consider cache a "legacy" structure is not relevant. Software does benefit a lot from it, and it make a big impact on how a processing unit works.
And there is nothing non-traditional about Cell's microarchitecture. It's nothing but a PowerPC G5-based core plus eight parallel specialized SIMD units, just like the ones that have been used for years on GPUs. It works like any other processor works.
@NewLynxS The other guy was right. You ARE a troll. You clearly don't want to learn and you clearly don't understand much about processor architecture. DMA IS direct access. Cache can be a gift or a curse. Plus, you could just write a software cache for the SPE's local store (LS). The difference is that hardware cache is unpredictable. Then, there would be more of it, since it wouldn't be limited to 32kb or 64kb.
PowerPC G5 based UNIT plus eight SIMD UNITS. Either use units for both or cores.
@AscendedSaiyan3 I could say the exact same about you. But if you don't want to take my word, go read IBM's documentation. Beyond that, there's nothing else I can tell you, believe whatever you want.
@NewLynxS No. No you can't say the same about me. I provided quotes from a developer and the Chief Architect at IBM over the Cell project. You are clearly going against what that are says, like you know better. That is the action of a troll.
BTW, the IBM documentation, written in part by Dr. Hofstee, tells you that each SPE/SPU has direct access to main memory via DMA calls. You are even going against the documentation you are talking about from IBM! It's lunacy.
@AscendedSaiyan3 Again, having to go through DMA calls = no direct access.
And I don't know what term this apparent idol of yours uses when refering to Cell, but if you actually read said documentation you'll see it explains how the SPEs work very differently than a processor core. That is because, as you can see by that description if their workings, the SPEs are SIMD vector processors (just like GPU stream processors), NOT CPU CORES.
Is the GTX580 a 512-core processor? No. Same for Cell.
@NewLynxS Now, let me make you feel REALLY dumb. DMA stands for Direct Memory Access. :D
And, yes. Each processor in a GPU is called a core, but you aren't willing to learn. At least, no one else will read your posts and think that you know what you're talking about. That's good for all of humanity.
@AscendedSaiyan3 DMA means accessing the memory by means beside through the CPU. It's a good thing for a peripherals or hardware on an expension slot, for instance, but it's not that good when you're talking about a structure inside the CPU itself. The fact that SPEs require a DMA engine shows this part of the processor, which should have a direct bus to the system memory just like Cell's core, cannot access it by any other way. That is a very redundant limitation.
@AscendedSaiyan3 And no, each GPU in a graphics card is called a core. A GTX580, with one GF110 GPU, is a single-core graphics card, while the GTX590, with two GF110 GPUs, is a dual-core graphics card. The processors inside a GPU can be ROPs, TMUs or stream processors, among others. And there is a reason they receive those names rather than "cores": THEY ARE NOT CORES.
@NewLynxS Yep... so since a GTX 580 performs 1581GFLOPS and a PS3 performs 579GFLOPS, does that mean a GTX 580 is only 2.73 times more powerful then a PS3? If that's so, then that's disappoiting, PS3 is five years old and yet today the world's fastest single GPU card is only 2.73 times more powerful?
@tazss159 First, you're comparing GPU + CPU versus a GPU alone. A GTX580 is almost four times (3.95) times faster than RSX on floating-point operations. And although that may not have been as much as you personally expected, graphics performance doesn't depend on FLOPS alone. Compared to RSX, the GTX580 has 6.65 times the pixel fillrate, 3.33 times the texel fillrate and 8.6 times the memory bandwidth, besides the various optimizations for double precision FLOPS the G70 processors don't have.
@NewLynxS Well, all of Sony's first party devs use the Cell to boost the RSX's performace in order to achieve the graphics that they have, so it is fair to compare the Cell + RSX together. So, is the difference between a GTX 580 and the PS3 as big as the difference between say the PS3 and PS2? Or maybe PS3 and the Wii?
@tazss159 Developers could also use Sandy Bridge or Thuban/Bulldozer processors to aid a GTX580. That's why it's not fair.
And maybe the difference between the two aren't as pronounced as the difference between the PS2 and the PS3, because the graphics technology isn't evolving as fast as it was back then. But that means the difference between the PS3 and the PS4 will be equally less pronounced. If the PS4 were made today, due to costs it would probably be around the GTX560~GTX570 range.
@NewLynxS But they don't, you would need the CPU's in PC's for the MIPS calculations, while the Cell SPU's can be strictly used to help the GPU produce better graphics.
So like said in this video, is the PS3 actually 40 times more powerful then PS2? While a GTX 580 is only 2.7 times more powerful then the PS3? That's not a big differenespeically considering how you can optimize far better for a console compared to a PC, because of the diversity of the hardware on the PC platform.
@tazss159 You could also have Sandy Bridge cores or Bulldozer modules aiding the GPU like Cell on the PS3, but it doesn't happen because PC is an open platform and you need your software to be compatible with everything. That puts optimization for general-purpose processors off the table.
And you also don't say today's PCs are as far away from a 2006 PC as said 2006 PC was from a 2000 PC. That's just it, we're at a point where the leap isn't as large as it once were.
@tazss159 I don't think that "40 times" thing was very precise. And I didn't say it was negligible, I said the difference isn't as large as from last console generation to current console generation. The difference between today's consoles and current hardware is most certainly not negligible.
@NewLynxS Well, do you know the specifications of the PS2 and PS3? If yes, then you could compare them. Also, I've read in numerous places that the PS3 and Xbox 360 have 512 MB VRAM, so since modern day PC's have around 1GB of VRAM, that's really not a very big difference at all, considering how old the consoles are. And considering how you can optimize far better on consoles, then you can on a PC.
@tazss159 It's not so simple, the PS2 had multiple processors with different purposes, not one central processing unit like the PS3.
And the PS3 and Xbox 360 have 512 MB of memory in total, it isn't all used as VRAM. Regardless, PC GPUs from 2005/2006 also had 256 MB to 512 MB of VRAM. And if the next generation of consoles came out today, it would also have 1 GB to 2 GB of VRAM, just like today's computers. The point is, if PCs are evolving slowly, consoles will also evolve slowly.
@NewLynxS Since the PS2 did 6GFLOPS and the PS3 does 579GFLOPS, the PS3 is 96.5 times the power of the PS2. And the PS3 was released just six years after the PS2, while something like a GTX 580 which is the most powerful single GPU card today, is only 2.7 times the power of the PS3. That's laughable. It sort of makes one think that the differences between PC's and consoles are negligible. And the difference is even smaller then 2.7 times, since you can optimize far better for a console.
@tazss159 I can safely assume that the GTX 580 is way more powerful than the Cell + RSX combined... Actually there's not even comparision... even a 9600GT easily beats the RSX... But you know... the PS3 is outdated and it was supposed to run at low power (350W)... I know what's happening here, someone came here to troll by stating that a enthusiast Level hardware is better than a console and you appeared to protect the console relying on a argument that proves nothing...
You're also very wrong about RSX. At 550 MHz with all shaders enabled, it can only achieve a maximum of 400.4 GFLOPS, as specified in NVIDIA's G70 documentation (24 pixel shaders, 27 floating-point operations per cycle from each; 8 vertex shaders, 10 floating-point operations per cycle from each; 550 million cyclos per second; [24*27 + 8*10]*550 = 400400 million floating point operations per cycle = 400.4 GFLOPS).
@iamgig9876 There's NO sim to it. Cell has 7 cores (1 PPE/PPU and 6 SPEs/SPUs) dedicated to gaming and 1 core dedicated to OS (not accessible for gaming). The PPE/PPU is a 64-bit processor (like in the X360) and is the weakest/slowest part of the Cell processor. Each SPE/SPU is a 128-bit processor. The goal is to get all code off the PPE/PPU and running on the SPEs/SPUs (where it runs the fastest). There's more performance when 1 thread goes to 1 core with more cores than 2 to 1 with less cores.
@AscendedSaiyan3 actually the stupider newlynxs troll is right about that the ps3 does do much more vector processing,, vectr imge processing, dot point processing, texture mapping, floating point operations, and pixel processing than the box 360 but its graphics are just about 3x weaker than a gtx 550 ti. However it does do an equal amount of dot point, vector and flops processing as an i5 quad core (non sandy bridge)
@iamgig9876 What some people are not getting is that being a vector processor does NOT keep an SPE/SPU from being a core. Saying the SPEs/SPUs are SIMD units only describe what type of CORE it is. Just like GPUs CORES are SIMD units (hundreds of them in fact). There are vector processors and scalar processors. Both are CORES. Actually, SPE is more of a "core" than i7 cores. Each SPE is capable of running a different OS. Core i7s can not run a different OS on each core due to shared resources.
@AscendedSaiyan3 The SPEs are not 128-bit processors, they are 64-bit processors just like the PPE. They just have 128-bit REGISTERS, which is a totally different thing and has nothing to do with their DWORD size support (64-bit). Also, "code" doesn't run faster on a SPE than on the PPE, both have the exact same 25.6 GFLOPS peak performance for SP FLOPS. And for any operation besides floating-point, such as integer or boolean, you're much better off running it on the PPE rather than on the SPEs.
@NewLynxS "An SPE can operate on sixteen 8-bit integers, eight 16-bit integers, four 32-bit integers, or four single-precision floating-point numbers in a single clock cycle, as well as a memory operation." What is 4 times 32-bit? Here's a clue. It's NOT 64-bit. You just don't understand computing at all! A PPE is equal to an SPE, when shading individual pixels. When doing scan lines, it's a completely different story. SPE/SPU don't have all the LHS problems and long pipeline PPE has.
Core i7 cores can run more than one OS per core. In fact, they can run multiple operating systems on the same core. That's exactly what VT instructions are for. Also, not only shared resources are not a problem in that regard, but also the SPEs are by no means free of resource sharing. They ALL share the same internal bus (EIB), and the same external one (FlexIO). And Core i7 processor may have shared cache, but SPEs have no cache at all.
@NewLynxS Core i7s aren't walled off and can't be walled off from their memory. That's what is necessary for different OSs to run, in their entirety, on multiple cores. The fact that you mentioned running multiple separate OSs on one core means you don't know what you're talking about. Stop trying to confuse people trying to learn something. SPEs DO have cache, but that's a little known fact. It's called Atomic Cache. Plus, a software cache can be written for the local stores that is predictable
Finally, animation, audio and AI are no advantage on the PS3. For starters, modern PC audio processors support up to 10 channels (8.2) of lossless audio (what makes you think PC sound is lossy?), even integrated ones. Not to mention the much more advanced processors and enhancements offered by Creative and ASUS. Second, AI is a simple, integer-dependent CPU program, where Cell is left in the dust even by maintream desktop processors.
@NewLynxS Yes, SPEs use EiB for inner core bandwidth, which is around 2 times that of Sandy Bridge inner core bandwidth. Proper discrete audio channels have to be mixed via software game code. Developers almost never write for more than 5.1 discrete channels. PC audio cards just spread that over other channels. They aren't discrete channels. A.I., that takes advantage of multiple cores and branch hints, should run better on Cell.
As for animation, no vector processor on the PS3, be it on RSX or Cell, will ever give the console higher quality than what can be achieved with current GPUs. The bottom line here is that whatever can be done on the PS3's $38 processor and $46 GPU can be done much better by today's mainstream PCs, let alone high-end ones. And that means EVERYTHING, be it graphics, audio or artificial intelligence. The ONLY aspect that is better on the consoles' hardware is price.
@Madkillr05 8 threads does NOT equal 8 processors. Almost every thread, in the Cell, links to it's own processor. That means near linear performance increase per thread. This is not the case with the X360 or the Intel's Core i7. On average, the 2nd thread into the SAME processor gives you a 30% performance boost. 3 secondary threads just about equals 1 thread to an individual core. For things that fit well to Cell's architecture, no other commercially available processor can touch it. Research.
If we wanted to pay thousands to upgrade to keep up with the tech, we would own PC's. But it's still a fact that despite the ever improving graphics cards, there is still not a PC on earth that can process the data that a PS3 can. 32 GigaFlops @4GHz. Get real guys. You will need a few more years and a few more thousand dollars befor your PC catches up to the PS3's data processing ability. So enjoy your PC and all that it has to offer, and we'll enjoy all the things that money can't buy for you.
@TheRealKillerTomato First, dude, 32 GFLOPS is very low performance. And is wrong to begin with, because at 3.2 GHz PS3's Cell processor achieves up to 179.2 GFLOPS (224 GFLOPS at 4 GHz). Second, a single Radeon HD6870 GPU ($230) achieves up to 2016 GFLOPS. Even a GeForce 8800 GTX, released a few days before the PS3, can achieve up to 518.4 GFLOPS.
Bottom line, there are millions of PCs on earth that can process data better than the PS3 can.
@NewLynxChannel Really.. Becuase the same cell processor is used in the worlds fastest computer system able to answer an equation that would take every other pc millions of years to answer while the road runner system can answer it in 2 hours..
@TheRandomViddz First, IBM Roadrunner isn't the fastest supercomputer anymore, today it's the seventh fastest. Second, doesn't use the same processor. The PS3 uses a regular Cell, while Roadrunner uses the PowerXCell 8i, and improved variant released in 2007. And third, Roadrunner uses not one, but 12960 PowerXCell 8i processors alongside 6912 dual-core Opterom processors. If you think you can compare that to the PS3's single $38 Cell processor, you're just insane.
@aabmikey If you're refering to Roadrunner being the fastest supercomputer in the world, it isn't anymore. According to the TOP500 list, which lists the 500 most powerful supercomputers in the world (last updated on November 2010). the fastest supercomputer is Tianhe-1A, which achieved a maximum performance of 2566 TFLOPS. Roadrunner, with its maximum performance of 1042 TFLOPS, is now the seventh, behind Tianhe-1A, Jaguar, Nebulae, Tsubame 2.0, Hopper and Tera-100.
@TheRandomViddz the guy was an idiot he thinks grphics cards and processor are supposed to be on the same league because the rsx of the ps3 can do 1.9 tflops (unocked)
@NewLynxChannel Animation, audio, A.I., etc are done on the CPU and not the GPU. While PC's are capable of doing a lot more on the graphics end (textures, physics, shading, etc.), it's not capable of outperforming the PS3 in character animations, character behavior, and 7.1 lossless audio mixing. Plus, you forget that PC games are NEVER designed for the fastest PC on the market. They are designed for the mid-range PCs. That's why Uncharted 2's animations and audio is still the top in gaming.
It's old technology, not 10 years old though, the development of the Cell wasn't even finished until 2004-2005.
It doesn't matter though, will games like Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 looking like they do, the Cell has already proven to the world what it can do..not bad for "10 year old tech" as you think.
funny that u mensioned (didnt speel that right xD) MW2 because that game is ONLY 600P, and that game deffently not run at 60fps on the PS3 it LAGS LIKE HELL i got both versions, if you played the pc, version first, u'll just throw the ps3 version away, try the pc version ull be amazed about the frame rate deffirent and the HUGE differents in GFX
i mean hey imagine this scenario : Hello, my friend i buy a ps3 xD xD xD Cool lets play on it What ? What do you mean ? You know..playing games ..lol .. But this is high-end So ? Lets play on it NO ! I wont my Cell CPU dose not deserve this ! I WONT PLAY GAMES ON IT ITS HIGH-END ! So for what the fuck you buy it ? JUST TO HAVE A HIGH-END THING ! NOW FUCK OFF YOU ARE NOT MY FRIEND ANYMORE ! Well this is what you do when you buy a console ? Looking at it ? I dont think so...
ps3 is outdate i say this because i have 2008 pc with a new 2010 GPU and i play gta 4 better compared to gta 4 from my ps3 but still i buy it only to play resistance fall of man, killzone 2 ,etc ...
@TheGrandTheftshit That's the same for me.For multi,go por pc and for exclusives,go for consoles.So the myth that gaming on pc is expensive doesn't make sense any longer.Of course there are peeps who build 1200$ PCs that are x20 more powerful than ps3.But why do they need so much power? If you can build a 500$pc which can be x5 more powerful than xbox360 or ps3.Greetings.
God damn it, I'm gone for a few weeks and when I come back, a fan-boy war erupts.
Can we all just safely agree that current-generation PC hardware is superior to console hardware? The truth is the truth, there's no denying that.
anatanokukki 1 day ago
02:36
Guess what, the majority of games these days are under 8gb. XD The largest games are still under 20gb, GTA IV is one of the biggest games, nearly 17gb.
I don't think developers will be making big budget games as often as they used to, so most games will probably remain under 8gb (X360 discs hold 9gb btw). So it's kind of irrelevant that PS3 discs can hold 50gb. By the time game data takes up that much space, the PS3 will be a dinosaur.
RalphCQ 3 weeks ago
@RalphCQ Actually, Uncharted 1-3, RAGE, MGS4, and Final Fantasy 13 all use 25+ GB. There are more, those are just the ones on the top of my head.
DILDOlover 1 week ago
@DILDOlover Still not a whole lot of games tho. Most of those are PS3 exclusive too.
Not sure how they fit RAGE on an X360 disc, unless it had multiple discs. I just checked Steam, and my RAGE install is indeed close to 22gb! Larger than GTA IV.
RalphCQ 1 week ago
@RalphCQ Of course PS3 exclusives are going to use more space, they aren't limited by the 360. RAGE on the 360 was on 3 DVDs and used like 27GB. Must have cost Zenimax a fortune since Microsoft charges up the ass if you use more then one disc...
DILDOlover 1 week ago
@DILDOlover I agree with you there.
The Wii U is supposed to have its own proprietary format for discs, with up to 25gb of space.
But blu-ray is Sony's technology, so you can't really fault Microsoft for not having blu-ray support on the 360.
RalphCQ 1 week ago
@RalphCQ Yeah, but Microsoft would have stuck with DVD anyways. They could have gone with HDDVD but they wanted to keep the launch price as low as possible.
DILDOlover 1 week ago
how can it be more powerful than the human brain
Megatronicful 4 weeks ago
@Megatronicful not more powerful, just more organized, just like a calculator does things our brain have the power to do, but can't because lack of organization and it's dynamic linking memory. something along the lines....
PurpleMoonYef 3 weeks ago
I HAVE A PC FOR MULTIPLATAFORM GAMES AND PS3 FOR EXCLUSIVES
chaturga13 1 month ago
lookk sade050
SADE050 1 month ago
pc don't have god of war 3 uncharted 1&2&3 killzone 2&3 infamous and more why ibay a pc rig that worht 1000$ and ican play the same game with 249$ + bluray player
SADE050 2 months ago
@SADE050 My PC is a 400-500$ custom build... It can play Blu-ray DVDs and run BF3 on medium-high... You might want to RESEARCH the cost of building a decent PC before pulling numbers out of your ass. Hell, I have a 500GB hard drive, just 50$.
PC > PS3 > Xbox 360
1. A PC is stronger in terms of hardware
2. Steam lets me shop for SUPERIOR versions of console games
3. A PC can do MUCH MORE than gaming
4. MUCH Less hackers and lag, with dedicated servers
I own a PS3 and PC, with a RROD Xbox 360.
anatanokukki 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anatanokukki can i play vanquish . shadow the damned . mortal kombat 9 . red dead redemption , star ocean the last hope , yakuza , killzone 2 ,3 , resistance , uncharted , heavy rain , modnation , gt5 , forza 4 , gears of war 3 , infamous , god of war 3 , demons souls, dark souls , marvel vs capcom 3 , danted inferno , the darkness , metal gear on pc??????????
SADE050 1 month ago
@anatanokukki you cant compare them deferent system and yes you can instal os linux
you know nothing about server haha and ps3 is old but we will see ps4 ps3 > i7
SADE050 1 month ago
@SADE050 PS3 has dedicated servers, but not for all their games. In PC, almost all modern-day internet-compatible games utilize dedicated servers.
PS4 > i7 for a simple reason, a newly released console is as strong as an a medium-end PC on the year it's released. By the time the PS4 is released, the i7 would be ancient.
One year the PS4's release, mid-end PCs will again, dominate the consoles. If I had to guess, the PS4's GPU would probably be a GTX 500 family equivalent card.
anatanokukki 1 month ago
@anatanokukki if you don't like ps3 why you are her
SADE050 1 month ago
@SADE050 You're an idiotic fanboy. It's people like you that make others look down on us as gamers. I never said I didn't like the PS3, it's my second primary console, and I said I own one.
About your other quote, the first two of those games are some of the best PC games. Starcraft II alone is one of the most famous games in the world. Almost every PC gamer has heard of Starcraft. Most gamers in general know about Starcraft. Stop pulling shit out of your mouth.
anatanokukki 1 month ago
@anatanokukki This is incorrect. PC activists have been saying that since before the PS3 launched. They have been wrong ever since. The PS3 released when the Nvidia 7800 launched. We known that Intel has JUST caught up with the Cell processor, in the PS3, SP FLOPS with Sandy Bridge. The RSX is the equivalent of a 7900GT. That only proves your statement wrong. PC GPUs loses up to 50% of it's power, being in an open box environment to APIs that have to work across multi-PC setups
AscendedSaiyan3 1 month ago
@anatanokukki 1. true
2. in some cases this is true, but consoles have many more games.
3. true (consoles also these days)
4. FALSE (except servers part)
BTW, having a Blu-ray drive doesn't mean the dev is making use of it. That is the PC curse. BF3 runs on the PS3 on basically PC medium-high setting. Plus, they could still go much further on PS3, if given the time. $250 for PS3:)
Did you put the 500GB HDD in your PS3? Some people put 1TB HDD in there.
I agree. PC>PS3>X360
AscendedSaiyan3 1 month ago
@SADE050 Just like consoles don't have Starcraft series, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Civilization series, Hard Reset and many others. Every platform has their exclusives. And yes, a $250 console plays the same games but with much lower visual quality.
And no, people don't have to compare the PS3 with PCs from 2006 (the PS3 was not released in 2005). If I want a PC for gaming, I'm going to buy one today, not go back in time and buy one in 2006.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS srsly who play this games
SADE050 1 month ago
@SADE050 Hard Reset is a small, single-player game distributed on Steam, I'll give you that. The other three franchises I meantioned outsold all the PS3 exclusives except for Gran Turismo 5. So yes, a lot of people play those games.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
when you compare ps3 to the pc compare it with 2005 PC's
SADE050 2 months ago
Consoles are much better at gaming then pc for fuck sake thats what it's designed to do , everytime new consoles are released pc plays catch up now shut up .
LYJManchesterUnited 2 months ago
@LYJManchesterUnited LMAOO ignorant statement by console gamers. I laugh every time i see comments like these. PC's are light years ahead of consoles and consoles will never catch up. All your games aren't even running at 1080p but you'll never know that. U fools
MrNothingButAir 2 months ago
@MrNothingButAir shut up i have a pc for god's sake i prefer to game on a relaxing sofa from a distance not so fucking near . what im saying is every time a new console comes out it's technology is much better then the pc's so console's technology is infact innovative and better then pc's. wad a retard as if i dont game on my pc.
LYJManchesterUnited 2 months ago
@LYJManchesterUnited maybe you don't realize that pcs are modular. why don't you get a wireless controller, and link your pc to your tv monitor? And games are made and designed on pc not on consoles. so pcs actually HAVE to be better. Pcs can be upgraded to become faster almost every month as new technology comes out. Consoles are now 3-4 years out of date, normal pcs now are already about 3 times faster. why dont you spend more money and get a 10x faster pc? Why not install a bluray drive...
PlaneAU 2 months ago
@PlaneAU Designing certain elements of a game and running the entire game are two different things. Characters and other artistic things are done on the PC because you need a LOT of RAM. Yes, PCs top hardware is about 10x faster (really just the GPU). The PS3 Cell processor is at least on par with Sandy Bridge in most properly written game code.
People keep forgetting that Devs can get a LOT more power out of hardware in a closed box (console) than open PCs with the same hardware.
AscendedSaiyan3 1 month ago
@LYJManchesterUnited Obviously your specs are just completely inferior, hence the misconception that PC is a crap platform. When a console is made, they compile very low powered tech to keep it cheap and to merely scrape the requirements of new games.
tarkinfish 2 months ago
@LYJManchesterUnited You couldn't be more wrong. While the PC market aways affords you the very latest, high-end technology, consoles are built with much more limited per-unit budget, TDP and internal space to fit components. Consoles are released with hardware that rivals the mainstream PC market of the time, but still behind the high-end market. And with time, where PCs keep evolving while consoles don't, that distance only becomes larger.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@MrNothingButAir No PC game runs at the level of animations Uncharted 2 or 3 does. No PC games has the advanced A.I. that Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 does (awards back up what I'm saying). I haven't seen a PC games have DISCRETE 7.1 LPCM audio. PC game audio usually is 5.1 Dolby Digital audio sent to dedicated audio hardware to be blurred over the other two channels to make 7.1 audio. GPUs aren't suited to all tasks. ;)
However, PC wins at just about everything else. :)
AscendedSaiyan3 1 month ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Animations? Be mroe specific. Uncharted 2 and 3 graphically looks good but you can run that on a mid level gaming PC easy (if its ported). And it'll look better than PS3 b/c of the anti aliasing and the increase native resolution. Game was designed on PC, will run better. Crysis 1 have the best AI of any video game ever. Don't even try to argue with Uncharted and Killzone. If their AI was so great, why isn't Killzone being praised as much as COD. Audio card >PS3
MrNothingButAir 1 month ago
@MrNothingButAir Saying animations IS being specific. Over 3500 animations blended on the fly by the CPU. Cell is just as strong as the highest end Sandy Bridge, when coded correctly. That rules out all mid-level gaming PCs right there. Killzone 2 won awards for ground breaking AI (after Crysis came out). Crysis AI was actually primitive. That goes to show you some people can't tell dynamic AI from scripted AI :) CoD shouldn't even be mentioned at all. U list PS2 level AI games.
AscendedSaiyan3 1 month ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 "Cell" is a bullshit CPU. Its a marketing gimmick to make you want to buy the PS3. dont be fooled by a 4 year old single core CPU. It can't perform half the task of a Intel 2500K. PS3 = 4 year old system. If PC developers put in some effort, they can design a game way beyond the AI that of Killzone and the graphics of Uncharted. Oh yeah we have Crysis =)
MrNothingButAir 1 month ago
@MrNothingButAir Wow, you really know nothing about the Cell processor and have come to spread misinformation and hate. Read the creators of the Cell processors words a few pages back. I qouted for some other guy that didn't know the Cell (PS3 ver) is a 8 core processor with almost twice the inner-core bandwidth of an i7 2500K and scales in a near linear fashion. The key is fitting your code in the 256KB Local Store.
BTW, Crysis 1 is available on the PS3 now via PSN. ;)
AscendedSaiyan3 1 month ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 First of all, Crysis is available on the PS3 as a version ported to CryEngine 3. The original Crysis, running on the much more demanding CryEngine 2, would never run on a current-generation console.
Second, saying Cell is on par with Sandy Bridge processors are one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard around here. Cell does not have eight cores, it has ONE core with eight additional SIMD units.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Not you again with your misinformation! Yeah, we all know game engines get worst over different versions/iterations, right?! SMH. Also, you keep bring up the same points I already killed pages ago. Almost nothing you type is accurate or based on any facts. Just re-read what I typed to these same incorrect posts you said before (pages back). Nothing has changed.
AscendedSaiyan3 1 month ago 7
@AscendedSaiyan3 You saying I'm uninformed is like Melissa McCarthy saying I'm fat.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Continued...
Cell's EIB does offer a very high bandwidth, but unlike usual x86 processors, it's a single large-area bus used by ALL the structures inside Cell simultaneously. That means the PPE plus its memory controller, the eight SPEs (seven on the PS3) and the two external FlexIO buses, all at once. So although the EIB offers up to 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth, dividing this by the twelve components gives you a measly 25.6 GB/s bandwidth for each.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Continued...
That is not high internal bandwidth. That is not even high external bandwidth, since it's the exact same as a dual-channel DDR3-1600 setup.
Add to that the much older and less efficient microarchitecture, the much older intruction sets (AVX, a recent game changer for FLOPS performance, is obviously absent on Cell) and the much lower transistor count, you have a processor that can only do a fraction of what a modern Sandy Bridge, Thuban or Bulldozer chip can.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Continued...
Finally, it's always interesting to point out how, in December 2009, a Cell processor (based on a microarchitecture from 2005) would cost just $37.73, according to an iSuppli report about the then recently launched PS3 Slim. In comparison, Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer chips (based on microarchitectures from 2010 and 2011 respectively) can cost well over $200. You must be REALLY gullible and naïve to believe Cell is a faster processor.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
if a ps3 can do this imagine what a pc can accomplish
crochunter3 2 months ago
This video has quite a few factual errors that I see the need to correct... Firstly, it sort of implies that Blu-ray means higher detail screen resolution gaming, but in reality this is simply false. Secondly, a standard DVD has 4.7 GB, a dual-layer DVD has 8.54 GB. Also 7 0f the 8 cores have no direct access to memory so I don't see why it claims that it can access data easily. This is why games which use all 8 cores don't look as fucking amazing as you would expect. The design is inefficient.
e102ewan 2 months ago
that guy at the 0:13 sound's like the general shepherd on mw2 :)
freegamers69 4 months ago
Robots will be the ultimate evolution of the human species. :)
xXDEICIDE216Xx 4 months ago
@1:15
the cell processor is 4 times better than the cpu of the ps2(300mhz) lol a 1990 computer is also better btw i love ps2!!!
gregorythegreatest15 4 months ago
@gregorythegreatest15
forty times srry
gregorythegreatest15 4 months ago
Does anyone else find it strange that Intel stop posting single precision numbers about it's processors a short time after the Cell started make supercomputer headlines? Now, they only post double precision numbers (where the original Cell processor, in the PS3, is the weakest). I find this to be interesting. Also, at Intel's Sandy Bridge production size (32nm), Cell could have over 36 cores (not 4 to 8 cores) and produce over 1TFLOPS SP / 500GFLOPS DP(double precision). Interesting numbers.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 the cell on the ps3 is pretty damn powerful and is equal to i5 or i7 but t loses in dot point processing, and it gains much more on single precision, and its like 3x the xenon and with the rsx which does 400 gflops and much more graphics processing than the 360 gpu iit can compete with an i5 with a gtx 520 and actually beat it in gaming and other stuff, im not really smart but I am smart enough to understand newlynxs is a troll bot
iamgig9876 4 months ago
@iamgig9876 Yes, Cell loses terribly, to Core i7 Sandy Bridge, in areas not concerning gaming/multimedia applications. This is without question. The X360 GPU (Xenos), on the other hand, matches well with the RSX. It beats RSX pretty bad in vertex processing. However, 2 SPEs completely changes that by doubling it's vertex processing capacity. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 vertex processing was higher than anything on X360, so far. Yes, GTX520 w/ i5 beats PS3 except in A.I., animation, and audio.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
Comment removed
iamgig9876 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Too bad kakarot a saiyan spaceship is over 9000 times faster than a cell processor!
iamgig9876 4 months ago
@iamgig9876 LOL!
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 stop arguing with lynx i just ignore his bullshit
iamgig9876 4 months ago
will it blend that is the questin
ghostsofmudkips 5 months ago
Xbox 360: Limit of the cpu's reached
Playstation 3: Limits not yet reached, not even with uncharted 2. (expensive for game developers to code for)
My money is still on sony.
I mean when they make a device, it lasts, it has bluray, hdmi, 3d gaming, 3d bluray, and power.
Xbox 360: had no hdmi at first, optional hddvd (lol) you had to pay for extra, less upgrades, and the red ring of death was installed on every box
Sony +1
Also, it looks better.
mikevanstaveren 6 months ago 4
@mikevanstaveren crysis 2 reach that limit
Viperzep 6 months ago
@mikevanstaveren Funny how the PS2 outdid the Gamecube and Xbox put together by far even though they both have far superior hardware. Nintendo learned a lot from Sony when they made the Wii.
e102ewan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikevanstaveren I don't see any reason why anybody would want to buy an Xbox 360 now...??? I mean PS3 has:
- Better exclusives
- Better graphics
- Free online with less lag
- Blu-Ray
- Free Netflix service
So?
tazss159 2 months ago
@mikevanstaveren You are correct on almost everything. Uncharted 2 was not expensive to code for, considering it's a AAA game. 18 months and $20 million. Uncharted 3 reaches new heights within 18 months and similar money.
AscendedSaiyan3 2 months ago
Comment removed
mikevanstaveren 6 months ago
ps3 sucks + sony sucks!
piripirifox 6 months ago
i cried
Th0ukos 6 months ago
Is this bullshit or what? I have invested about 160 hours into my Game of the Year Edition Fallout 3 and it started giving me the slowest gameplay ever. It won't run all the data(FUCK YOU CELL PROCESSOR BULLSHIT!). From incredible lag to freezing, to crashes, I haven't been able to play the game I once loved.
It finally ended up giving me a Yellow Light of Death.
sigh.... can I please have some thumbs up for sympathy?
SHiTJuFro743 7 months ago
@SHiTJuFro743 ts the developers fault the shoud have utilied all 7 spes in order to lower the heat on the processors, they were retarded enough to put al the unctions on a single spe and use the rsx to the max without assisting it with the cell processor look at bf3 dice said it will ook lmost like the pc version and with the new gameplay frm gdc 2011 they proved lok at fallout 3 they wre lazy nd didnt do nothing and broke your ps3 bf 3 will put in medium heat on all 6 spes =140 gflops= i7
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 I know, Bethesda was using some shoddy coding in their game and it would get worse the longer you play. (That's why I wouldn't even touch New Vegas, it's bad tech in the hands of a bad developer)
But at least they made a better one for Elder Scrolls Skyrim. WITCH LOOKS FUCKING SSWWEEEET!!
SHiTJuFro743 5 months ago
@SHiTJuFro743 dont trust the same developer twice, i for one hate rpgs so i wont be buying it
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 (I just noticed I spelled which wrong.)
I like many types of games. It just depends on whether or not it's good. (BF3 looks like it will be sweet.)
I can get into a good RPG, Racing, Fighting, Shooter, adventure, strategy, or puzzle game. It really just depends. Other than Battlefield, is there any other games you're excited for? *Please don't say MW3*
SHiTJuFro743 5 months ago
@SHiTJuFro743 ArmA III ( way too superior to frostbite 2.0 look a t the e3 presentatin it just made dice lok like shit) , UC 3, and AC: REVELATiONS
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@SHiTJuFro743 hey how bout this if you kept your ps3 outside that dark tv holdrer thing, it would get ore air=get more vntilation= no more overheating nd prform the fan test once in a while it clears the dirt from theinside
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 what tv holder thing?? the one I don't have??? It's in the open..... -_-
Also, I have the original PS3, it doesn't run fan tests. :P
P.S. Do you know anything about the ps3??? It's insides, if you ever looked into this SHiT, are a bunch of junk. It's overheating because Sony wanted to save a nickel and fuck over the consumer by buying cheap ass thermal paste. (AKA, what keeps the CPU and GPU connected to the motherfucking heatsink!!) It's not my fault, numbnuts! LEARN GRAMMER BTW!!
SHiTJuFro743 5 months ago
@SHiTJuFro743 lol i keep it in a dark place and it never overeatss to ylod it only freeze s i pt on the ac and it goes away but sadly bf bc 2 is severly flaed on consoles (the only flaw is that i lose ll my data every single gun then it magically all coes back after a single death, (its not that anoying
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@SHiTJuFro743 i have a fat ps3 search up how to get the an test done
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@SHiTJuFro743 it costs like 90 dollars (or just use ps store to buy a waranty) to fix it or its simple to fix by reapplyin thermal paste and fixing the gpu b aplying alchohol
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 I'm already planning on fixing it myself. (That warranty bullSHiT is a jipp. I shouldn't have to spend so much extra money to the fucks that make bank off af using SHiTmaterials.) Bye now
SHiTJuFro743 5 months ago
What ps3 is this guy talking about He obviously never tryed to use the ps3s web browser or write a message while in a game. Multitasking at its finest???
iloatheyoutoo 7 months ago
So true love my ps3 as well I don't own a 360 but I also know they are very good as well. Just not as good as the cell.
Bigericman405 7 months ago 3
this is bullshit PR trying to put down any other processor except the ps3's itself. come on, some guy talking in a smooth voice about how ever single processor is "nowhere near as good as a ps3's" because it can only do 1 task at a time? when the fuck did this happen? in the early 00's pentium 4's had not only timesharing (from about 30 years ago), but hyperthreading, and then dual/quad cores came along. Think....why havent pc's got 8 cores yet as standard? it isn't needed now, or even back then
harper16 7 months ago
@harper16 look kid bf3 and metro 2033 have shown te need for better processors, and dce have been sart enough to use theps3 to the max the ps3 doesnt have 8 cores lol it has processors he difference is that 8 cores is useless 8 processors can basically fuck up 8 cores thats why the 360 cant ven do uncharted 2 which is barely 60% the ps3s processors power
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 While it is true that the X360 can't run Uncharted 2 in it's original form, Uncharted 2 uses near 100% of the Cell's clock cycles. The developer just said they had a good bit of room to optimize that code to run faster on the Cell (basically, they could easily improve how much they could do with the same amount of clock cycles). Uncharted 3 is showing you the performance improvements they have come up with so far on the Cell and the rest of the PS3's architecture. :)
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@harper16 Intel and AMD CAN'T have 8 cores, because their cores take up a lot more space. You can fit 4 SPEs/SPUs in the same space as 1 standard core from Intel/AMD/IBM. Not to mention an SPE/SPU draws around one-tenth the power of one of Intel/AMD/IBM standard core. To top all that off, Cell can typically get a LOT closer to it's theoretical max than Intel/AMD cores. Cell isn't built with legacy support in mind and Intel/AMD is also weighed down with that. It slows it down even further.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
ps3theme dot net get the latest ps3 themes with an online ps3 theme previewer :)
superaktieboy 7 months ago
marketing......so many lies
2fast4uspartan 8 months ago 2
this voice sounds like the dude on the Aliens movie and the guy on the Droid commercials
STREETSTALKERT09 8 months ago
i love my girlfriend. XD<<
mynamerahmat 8 months ago
it just can't play ps2 games XD
dondonini 9 months ago
@dondonini Or take over the universe...or make food...or...hold a gun...
amartinez97 9 months ago
@amartinez97 or beat pc.
Sebatiger 8 months ago
@dondonini my ceche01 can still play ps2.. software base emulation still pwns not to mention all of the hombrew nowadays ps3=all in one console once jailbreak
franzken 8 months ago
@dondonini lol
mavishill 6 months ago
0:59 i seen this before....
sanfelipe007 9 months ago
i love my ps3 :)
noiseboom 10 months ago 14
@noiseboom i love my sexbox too .....!! I MEAN PS3!! :P
sanfelipe007 9 months ago
@sanfelipe007 xD
noiseboom 9 months ago
very few game developers fully utlise the cell processer the ones that do have to do there homework and it shows , port a game to the ps3 without optmising and you get a very poor port.
123allrock 10 months ago
SWEET!!!
tjmady 10 months ago
There would be time when microchip will design another microchip. And then a robot would build it. But what started it of? Our brain. Show a little respect. Thank you
P.s I love playstation.
uuuserunknown 10 months ago 18
not as smart as the person who created it
Assassin007bullet 11 months ago
Anybody know the flying game that they show in this video? I would very much like to play it.
XtR0pX 11 months ago
His voice is so freaking sexy.
Chihang256 11 months ago
the cell only has 1 real processor btw, and my i7 can handle 8 threads worth of info, vs the ps3's 6, and the xbox 360 cpu is a triple core cpu, with hyperthreading, so the 360 has more physical cores than the ps3, and it matches the ps3's spu count (no it doesent have 8, it has 6 available to devs)
Madkillr05 1 year ago
@Madkillr05 Firstly you are comparing two different architectures, second you are comparing two different architectures that are from different time periods....of Course the i7 will be faster than the Cell. But you are incorrectly wrong regarding the 360 CPU. The Cell processor has more performane than the 360, regarding in tasks.
oblivion183hv 1 year ago
@Madkillr05 dam dude your stupid the ps3 has basically 7 processors which can simlate the same perfomance of a 7 core
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 Stop being an idiot. Cell has one core and seven SIMD units. It can't "simulate" the performance of seven cores, a SIMD unit is just a fraction of what a core is. And your comparison to Core i7 processors was ridiculous. Core i7 processors achieve over 100 GFLOPS in DOUBLE PRECISION operations, while Cell achieves up to 179.2 GFLOPS in SINGLE PRECISION. In double precision, the entire Cell processor only achieves up to a measly 20.8 GFLOPS.
NewLynxS 5 months ago
@NewLynxS it ahcieves 42 gflops from what i read in wikipedia and 6 gflops per simd unit and well at single precision it achieve 178 and aain rsx+cell can do much more than an i3 or i5 mid range, combined with thier own pus wih they come with and again cel+rsx can certainly do more than anything xenon+xenos no shut the fuk up and get out cause i see you in ever video that s a part of cell you are obviously a troll bot
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 "For double-precision floating point operations (...) Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 20.8 GFLOPS (1.8 GFLOPS per SPE, 6.4 GFLOPS per PPE)." - from Wikipedia
You do know how to read, right?
And of course RSX can do more than Intel embedded GPUs, they are very low-end models not at all meant for 3D rendering. But if you compare that to a $80 GPU like the HD6670 (768 GFLOPS in SP, not even counting the processor), RSX + Cell are left in the dust.
NewLynxS 5 months ago
@NewLynxS That's completely true! It's the GPU and RAM that makes PC gaming superior...not the CPU. Plus, GPUs in PCs lose up to 60% of it's performance. In other words, a lesser GPU can end up having more performance in a closed environment (like consoles) than a more powerful GPU in a PC. This is do to APIs, etc. New generation of consoles take the performance numbers for the GPU and damn near double it, when trying to compare to PC GPUs. Plus, bandwidth to GPUs is a big factor too! :)
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@NewLynxS Dr. Hofstee says Cell has 9 multi-purpose cores. Are you smarter than the team that created it? No, so Cell has 9 cores (in PS3 1 core is disabled and 1 core is for OS). Cell achieves 204GFLOPS in SP. DP is for scientific operations. In gaming, SP is where it's at. Core i7 bets Cell bad in DP ONLY. No Intel chip has been able to get within 70% of it's theoretical max. Cell has been able to achieve 97% of theoretical max. When comparing gaming use, Cell generally wins. Sorry. Research.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Your "research" is full of nonsense. In fact, that was one of the most ridiculous replies I got in months. PC GPUs don't "lose performance", console GPUs are not more powerful than their PC counterparts, neither do they double anything, and double precision is used everywhere, not just for scentific uses.
And if "Dr. Hofstee" said that Cell has nine cores, then "Dr. Hofstee" is an idiot. IBM's documentation clearly states it has ONE PowerPC core and eight parallel SIMD units.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@NewLynxS "although PC graphics are better than the console version-- developers can't tap into the PC's true potential because they can't program hardware directly at a low-level, forced to work through DirectX instead". "More than just co-processors, Dr. Hofstee said, the SPEs are FULLY-CAPABLE PROCESSING UNITS that are capable not only of running threads spawned off from a main program, but also running "single-core," scalar programs in their entirety". TO LEARN, JUST SEARCH THE QUOTES.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Low-level access provides minimal advantage compared to a standardized API, and they're mostly related to flexibility, not to performance. The additional processing power required to go through an API such as DirectX is more than diluted in face of modern hardware. The problem you mentioned was true a decade ago, not today.
And any processing unit can run threads and programs, that's not what makes a core. And SPEs are not cores, they are SIMD units just like GPU shaders.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@NewLynxS Any developer will tell you that not being able to code "to the metal" is a performance AND flexibility issue. That article is not old. It completely applies today and tomorrow.
Regarding the SPE cores, you must have skipped over this part..."but also running "single-core," scalar programs in their entirety." That is the end all statement that tells you it's a core. You don't have to believe that. You can continue to ignore the truths presented, but does not change the situation.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Continued...
SPEs have no cache (and therefore, do data pattern predictors), no direct access to the system memory and a MUCH more limited instruction set, not to mention the fact that they can only run vectorized instructions (obviously, being SIMD units). Thus they are much more limited than a core both in terms of programming flexibility and in what can be accomplished with them.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@NewLynxS Talking about cache makes no sense, when discussing whether something is a core or not. That's just standard legacy architecture. Each SPE has DIRECT ACCESS to main memory through DMA calls. That is the only way the quote line, from the IBM Chief Architect, below could be true. You aren't making an argument against the SPEs being cores. You are making an argument against the SPEs being traditional core with a traditional architecture. We know SPEs/Cell isn't a traditional architecture
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Having to go through DMA calls = no direct access.
And whether you consider cache a "legacy" structure is not relevant. Software does benefit a lot from it, and it make a big impact on how a processing unit works.
And there is nothing non-traditional about Cell's microarchitecture. It's nothing but a PowerPC G5-based core plus eight parallel specialized SIMD units, just like the ones that have been used for years on GPUs. It works like any other processor works.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@NewLynxS The other guy was right. You ARE a troll. You clearly don't want to learn and you clearly don't understand much about processor architecture. DMA IS direct access. Cache can be a gift or a curse. Plus, you could just write a software cache for the SPE's local store (LS). The difference is that hardware cache is unpredictable. Then, there would be more of it, since it wouldn't be limited to 32kb or 64kb.
PowerPC G5 based UNIT plus eight SIMD UNITS. Either use units for both or cores.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 I could say the exact same about you. But if you don't want to take my word, go read IBM's documentation. Beyond that, there's nothing else I can tell you, believe whatever you want.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@NewLynxS No. No you can't say the same about me. I provided quotes from a developer and the Chief Architect at IBM over the Cell project. You are clearly going against what that are says, like you know better. That is the action of a troll.
BTW, the IBM documentation, written in part by Dr. Hofstee, tells you that each SPE/SPU has direct access to main memory via DMA calls. You are even going against the documentation you are talking about from IBM! It's lunacy.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Again, having to go through DMA calls = no direct access.
And I don't know what term this apparent idol of yours uses when refering to Cell, but if you actually read said documentation you'll see it explains how the SPEs work very differently than a processor core. That is because, as you can see by that description if their workings, the SPEs are SIMD vector processors (just like GPU stream processors), NOT CPU CORES.
Is the GTX580 a 512-core processor? No. Same for Cell.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@NewLynxS Now, let me make you feel REALLY dumb. DMA stands for Direct Memory Access. :D
And, yes. Each processor in a GPU is called a core, but you aren't willing to learn. At least, no one else will read your posts and think that you know what you're talking about. That's good for all of humanity.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 DMA means accessing the memory by means beside through the CPU. It's a good thing for a peripherals or hardware on an expension slot, for instance, but it's not that good when you're talking about a structure inside the CPU itself. The fact that SPEs require a DMA engine shows this part of the processor, which should have a direct bus to the system memory just like Cell's core, cannot access it by any other way. That is a very redundant limitation.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 And no, each GPU in a graphics card is called a core. A GTX580, with one GF110 GPU, is a single-core graphics card, while the GTX590, with two GF110 GPUs, is a dual-core graphics card. The processors inside a GPU can be ROPs, TMUs or stream processors, among others. And there is a reason they receive those names rather than "cores": THEY ARE NOT CORES.
NewLynxS 4 months ago
@NewLynxS Yep... so since a GTX 580 performs 1581GFLOPS and a PS3 performs 579GFLOPS, does that mean a GTX 580 is only 2.73 times more powerful then a PS3? If that's so, then that's disappoiting, PS3 is five years old and yet today the world's fastest single GPU card is only 2.73 times more powerful?
tazss159 2 months ago
@tazss159 First, you're comparing GPU + CPU versus a GPU alone. A GTX580 is almost four times (3.95) times faster than RSX on floating-point operations. And although that may not have been as much as you personally expected, graphics performance doesn't depend on FLOPS alone. Compared to RSX, the GTX580 has 6.65 times the pixel fillrate, 3.33 times the texel fillrate and 8.6 times the memory bandwidth, besides the various optimizations for double precision FLOPS the G70 processors don't have.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS Well, all of Sony's first party devs use the Cell to boost the RSX's performace in order to achieve the graphics that they have, so it is fair to compare the Cell + RSX together. So, is the difference between a GTX 580 and the PS3 as big as the difference between say the PS3 and PS2? Or maybe PS3 and the Wii?
tazss159 2 months ago 6
@tazss159 Developers could also use Sandy Bridge or Thuban/Bulldozer processors to aid a GTX580. That's why it's not fair.
And maybe the difference between the two aren't as pronounced as the difference between the PS2 and the PS3, because the graphics technology isn't evolving as fast as it was back then. But that means the difference between the PS3 and the PS4 will be equally less pronounced. If the PS4 were made today, due to costs it would probably be around the GTX560~GTX570 range.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS But they don't, you would need the CPU's in PC's for the MIPS calculations, while the Cell SPU's can be strictly used to help the GPU produce better graphics.
So like said in this video, is the PS3 actually 40 times more powerful then PS2? While a GTX 580 is only 2.7 times more powerful then the PS3? That's not a big differenespeically considering how you can optimize far better for a console compared to a PC, because of the diversity of the hardware on the PC platform.
tazss159 2 months ago
@tazss159 You could also have Sandy Bridge cores or Bulldozer modules aiding the GPU like Cell on the PS3, but it doesn't happen because PC is an open platform and you need your software to be compatible with everything. That puts optimization for general-purpose processors off the table.
And you also don't say today's PCs are as far away from a 2006 PC as said 2006 PC was from a 2000 PC. That's just it, we're at a point where the leap isn't as large as it once were.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS So, is the PS2 40 times the power of the PS3? Are the differences between modern day hardware and a PS3/360 negligible?
tazss159 2 months ago
@tazss159 I don't think that "40 times" thing was very precise. And I didn't say it was negligible, I said the difference isn't as large as from last console generation to current console generation. The difference between today's consoles and current hardware is most certainly not negligible.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS Well, do you know the specifications of the PS2 and PS3? If yes, then you could compare them. Also, I've read in numerous places that the PS3 and Xbox 360 have 512 MB VRAM, so since modern day PC's have around 1GB of VRAM, that's really not a very big difference at all, considering how old the consoles are. And considering how you can optimize far better on consoles, then you can on a PC.
tazss159 2 months ago
@tazss159 It's not so simple, the PS2 had multiple processors with different purposes, not one central processing unit like the PS3.
And the PS3 and Xbox 360 have 512 MB of memory in total, it isn't all used as VRAM. Regardless, PC GPUs from 2005/2006 also had 256 MB to 512 MB of VRAM. And if the next generation of consoles came out today, it would also have 1 GB to 2 GB of VRAM, just like today's computers. The point is, if PCs are evolving slowly, consoles will also evolve slowly.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
Comment removed
tazss159 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NewLynxS Since the PS2 did 6GFLOPS and the PS3 does 579GFLOPS, the PS3 is 96.5 times the power of the PS2. And the PS3 was released just six years after the PS2, while something like a GTX 580 which is the most powerful single GPU card today, is only 2.7 times the power of the PS3. That's laughable. It sort of makes one think that the differences between PC's and consoles are negligible. And the difference is even smaller then 2.7 times, since you can optimize far better for a console.
tazss159 2 months ago
@tazss159 I can safely assume that the GTX 580 is way more powerful than the Cell + RSX combined... Actually there's not even comparision... even a 9600GT easily beats the RSX... But you know... the PS3 is outdated and it was supposed to run at low power (350W)... I know what's happening here, someone came here to troll by stating that a enthusiast Level hardware is better than a console and you appeared to protect the console relying on a argument that proves nothing...
arospades 1 week ago
@iamgig9876 Continued...
You're also very wrong about RSX. At 550 MHz with all shaders enabled, it can only achieve a maximum of 400.4 GFLOPS, as specified in NVIDIA's G70 documentation (24 pixel shaders, 27 floating-point operations per cycle from each; 8 vertex shaders, 10 floating-point operations per cycle from each; 550 million cyclos per second; [24*27 + 8*10]*550 = 400400 million floating point operations per cycle = 400.4 GFLOPS).
NewLynxS 5 months ago
@iamgig9876 There's NO sim to it. Cell has 7 cores (1 PPE/PPU and 6 SPEs/SPUs) dedicated to gaming and 1 core dedicated to OS (not accessible for gaming). The PPE/PPU is a 64-bit processor (like in the X360) and is the weakest/slowest part of the Cell processor. Each SPE/SPU is a 128-bit processor. The goal is to get all code off the PPE/PPU and running on the SPEs/SPUs (where it runs the fastest). There's more performance when 1 thread goes to 1 core with more cores than 2 to 1 with less cores.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 actually the stupider newlynxs troll is right about that the ps3 does do much more vector processing,, vectr imge processing, dot point processing, texture mapping, floating point operations, and pixel processing than the box 360 but its graphics are just about 3x weaker than a gtx 550 ti. However it does do an equal amount of dot point, vector and flops processing as an i5 quad core (non sandy bridge)
iamgig9876 4 months ago
@iamgig9876 What some people are not getting is that being a vector processor does NOT keep an SPE/SPU from being a core. Saying the SPEs/SPUs are SIMD units only describe what type of CORE it is. Just like GPUs CORES are SIMD units (hundreds of them in fact). There are vector processors and scalar processors. Both are CORES. Actually, SPE is more of a "core" than i7 cores. Each SPE is capable of running a different OS. Core i7s can not run a different OS on each core due to shared resources.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 The SPEs are not 128-bit processors, they are 64-bit processors just like the PPE. They just have 128-bit REGISTERS, which is a totally different thing and has nothing to do with their DWORD size support (64-bit). Also, "code" doesn't run faster on a SPE than on the PPE, both have the exact same 25.6 GFLOPS peak performance for SP FLOPS. And for any operation besides floating-point, such as integer or boolean, you're much better off running it on the PPE rather than on the SPEs.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS "An SPE can operate on sixteen 8-bit integers, eight 16-bit integers, four 32-bit integers, or four single-precision floating-point numbers in a single clock cycle, as well as a memory operation." What is 4 times 32-bit? Here's a clue. It's NOT 64-bit. You just don't understand computing at all! A PPE is equal to an SPE, when shading individual pixels. When doing scan lines, it's a completely different story. SPE/SPU don't have all the LHS problems and long pipeline PPE has.
AscendedSaiyan3 2 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Continued...
Core i7 cores can run more than one OS per core. In fact, they can run multiple operating systems on the same core. That's exactly what VT instructions are for. Also, not only shared resources are not a problem in that regard, but also the SPEs are by no means free of resource sharing. They ALL share the same internal bus (EIB), and the same external one (FlexIO). And Core i7 processor may have shared cache, but SPEs have no cache at all.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS Core i7s aren't walled off and can't be walled off from their memory. That's what is necessary for different OSs to run, in their entirety, on multiple cores. The fact that you mentioned running multiple separate OSs on one core means you don't know what you're talking about. Stop trying to confuse people trying to learn something. SPEs DO have cache, but that's a little known fact. It's called Atomic Cache. Plus, a software cache can be written for the local stores that is predictable
AscendedSaiyan3 2 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Continued...
Finally, animation, audio and AI are no advantage on the PS3. For starters, modern PC audio processors support up to 10 channels (8.2) of lossless audio (what makes you think PC sound is lossy?), even integrated ones. Not to mention the much more advanced processors and enhancements offered by Creative and ASUS. Second, AI is a simple, integer-dependent CPU program, where Cell is left in the dust even by maintream desktop processors.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS Yes, SPEs use EiB for inner core bandwidth, which is around 2 times that of Sandy Bridge inner core bandwidth. Proper discrete audio channels have to be mixed via software game code. Developers almost never write for more than 5.1 discrete channels. PC audio cards just spread that over other channels. They aren't discrete channels. A.I., that takes advantage of multiple cores and branch hints, should run better on Cell.
AscendedSaiyan3 2 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Fine, I tried to help. If you want to be ignorant, then go ahead and be ignorant.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@AscendedSaiyan3 Continued...
As for animation, no vector processor on the PS3, be it on RSX or Cell, will ever give the console higher quality than what can be achieved with current GPUs. The bottom line here is that whatever can be done on the PS3's $38 processor and $46 GPU can be done much better by today's mainstream PCs, let alone high-end ones. And that means EVERYTHING, be it graphics, audio or artificial intelligence. The ONLY aspect that is better on the consoles' hardware is price.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@Madkillr05 8 threads does NOT equal 8 processors. Almost every thread, in the Cell, links to it's own processor. That means near linear performance increase per thread. This is not the case with the X360 or the Intel's Core i7. On average, the 2nd thread into the SAME processor gives you a 30% performance boost. 3 secondary threads just about equals 1 thread to an individual core. For things that fit well to Cell's architecture, no other commercially available processor can touch it. Research.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
If we wanted to pay thousands to upgrade to keep up with the tech, we would own PC's. But it's still a fact that despite the ever improving graphics cards, there is still not a PC on earth that can process the data that a PS3 can. 32 GigaFlops @4GHz. Get real guys. You will need a few more years and a few more thousand dollars befor your PC catches up to the PS3's data processing ability. So enjoy your PC and all that it has to offer, and we'll enjoy all the things that money can't buy for you.
TheRealKillerTomato 1 year ago
@TheRealKillerTomato First, dude, 32 GFLOPS is very low performance. And is wrong to begin with, because at 3.2 GHz PS3's Cell processor achieves up to 179.2 GFLOPS (224 GFLOPS at 4 GHz). Second, a single Radeon HD6870 GPU ($230) achieves up to 2016 GFLOPS. Even a GeForce 8800 GTX, released a few days before the PS3, can achieve up to 518.4 GFLOPS.
Bottom line, there are millions of PCs on earth that can process data better than the PS3 can.
NewLynxChannel 1 year ago
@NewLynxChannel Really.. Becuase the same cell processor is used in the worlds fastest computer system able to answer an equation that would take every other pc millions of years to answer while the road runner system can answer it in 2 hours..
TheRandomViddz 11 months ago
@TheRandomViddz First, IBM Roadrunner isn't the fastest supercomputer anymore, today it's the seventh fastest. Second, doesn't use the same processor. The PS3 uses a regular Cell, while Roadrunner uses the PowerXCell 8i, and improved variant released in 2007. And third, Roadrunner uses not one, but 12960 PowerXCell 8i processors alongside 6912 dual-core Opterom processors. If you think you can compare that to the PS3's single $38 Cell processor, you're just insane.
NewLynxChannel 11 months ago
@NewLynxChannel I meant "an improved variant".
NewLynxChannel 11 months ago
@NewLynxChannel LOL If you look up the latest videos, it is. so i would just stop your lying..
aabmikey 11 months ago
@aabmikey If you're refering to Roadrunner being the fastest supercomputer in the world, it isn't anymore. According to the TOP500 list, which lists the 500 most powerful supercomputers in the world (last updated on November 2010). the fastest supercomputer is Tianhe-1A, which achieved a maximum performance of 2566 TFLOPS. Roadrunner, with its maximum performance of 1042 TFLOPS, is now the seventh, behind Tianhe-1A, Jaguar, Nebulae, Tsubame 2.0, Hopper and Tera-100.
NewLynxChannel 11 months ago
@TheRandomViddz the guy was an idiot he thinks grphics cards and processor are supposed to be on the same league because the rsx of the ps3 can do 1.9 tflops (unocked)
iamgig9876 5 months ago
@NewLynxChannel Animation, audio, A.I., etc are done on the CPU and not the GPU. While PC's are capable of doing a lot more on the graphics end (textures, physics, shading, etc.), it's not capable of outperforming the PS3 in character animations, character behavior, and 7.1 lossless audio mixing. Plus, you forget that PC games are NEVER designed for the fastest PC on the market. They are designed for the mid-range PCs. That's why Uncharted 2's animations and audio is still the top in gaming.
AscendedSaiyan3 4 months ago
63 people can't solve a Rubix Cube.
LegionOf3 1 year ago
10 years old tech...
oajlu 1 year ago
@oajlu
It's old technology, not 10 years old though, the development of the Cell wasn't even finished until 2004-2005.
It doesn't matter though, will games like Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 looking like they do, the Cell has already proven to the world what it can do..not bad for "10 year old tech" as you think.
CynicalVision 1 year ago
BTW crysis is getting old and is VERY VERY bad coded
raketenDK 1 year ago
funny that u mensioned (didnt speel that right xD) MW2 because that game is ONLY 600P, and that game deffently not run at 60fps on the PS3 it LAGS LIKE HELL i got both versions, if you played the pc, version first, u'll just throw the ps3 version away, try the pc version ull be amazed about the frame rate deffirent and the HUGE differents in GFX
raketenDK 1 year ago
I think the ending suggests the PS4 will....
BE ABLE TO MANIPULATE TIME ITSELF!!!1!!1! O_O
[/conspiracy]
rdan721 1 year ago
TheGrandTheftshit 1 year ago
ps3 is outdate i say this because i have 2008 pc with a new 2010 GPU and i play gta 4 better compared to gta 4 from my ps3 but still i buy it only to play resistance fall of man, killzone 2 ,etc ...
TheGrandTheftshit 1 year ago
@TheGrandTheftshit That's the same for me.For multi,go por pc and for exclusives,go for consoles.So the myth that gaming on pc is expensive doesn't make sense any longer.Of course there are peeps who build 1200$ PCs that are x20 more powerful than ps3.But why do they need so much power? If you can build a 500$pc which can be x5 more powerful than xbox360 or ps3.Greetings.
rydersmoke 1 year ago
@TheGrandTheftshit PC's just NOW are catching up to consoles, and absolutely for exclusives you can't beat consoles, best of both worlds, absolutely.
FeeLtheHertZ 1 year ago