PC is way better then PS3... Just sayin because the PS3 has low FPS and can't be upgraded to new graphics cards. Plus, why would you turn a console into a computer? It's for gaming not watching porn on HD lol
@videooven Yea, rest is full of crap. I seen how much FPS you get on PS3 vs my PC... Mine I just got gets over 40 FPS in GTA4 and GTA4 on PS3 only gets around 30 and lags at times. Plus, you don't get the new flash player on PS3 to watch HD videos lol so I guess it's for storage :P
PS3 System Specs: 3.2 GHz Processor (1 PPE & 7 SPE) 256 MB System RAM 256 MB Video RAM 550 MHz NVIDIA/SCEI RSX My Computer's Specs: 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5700 4.00 GB System RAM 512 MB Video RAM 650 MHz ATI Radeon HD 5450 Basically, PS3 is trash. My computer has an actual OS, so I can do more things, no crash, and play games. PS3 only does games, and it does a terrible job even at that. I get HDMI and all that, PS3 and XBOX 360 are a joke.
1:08 "We have got game running" oh snap, they're playing COD or Uncharted in the background while on Linux! ``Gain is your instant messenger`` oh never mind its just crappy Gaim........
@TheSyncImage dude, no one would wanna run an os on an xbox :') hardware coulnt kill a fly nevermind run a decent os , the ps3 was designed for this to be possible, witch is a great design feature and one which no other games console could manage.
@mitzibishi yeh, its xms ram , runs about three times faster than average ddr3 ram andwhen running something like linux, huge amounts of ram arent needed, right now im running windows 8 and its using 7.8GB ram, yeh with my linux os's 1gb is more than enough
@boogman250 shame the PS3 RAM aint fast enough to even run cross game chat. and Linux on the PS3, it runs worse than a cheap netbook, its just a gimmick so people can say "ooh look ive booted it, cant do much else though." maybe play minesweeper or open a notepad or calculator, not all at once though or it will grind to a halt. besides Sony is dropping support for it, just like they dropped updating on that awfull PS3 web-browser gimmick thingy.
@boogman250 The XDR RAM used on the PS3 has a maximum bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. That's exactly the same as a common DDR3-1600 setup, but for a much higher price.
And as of today, DDR3 can achieve as much as 76.8 GB/s (DDR3-2400 on four channels, on the LGA-2011 platform), three times faster than the PS3's XDR.
@TheSyncImage xbox is so easy to get hacked no one cares about it, ps3 is so hard to get hacked that only the top hackers took the challenge to do it and only 1 group has successfully accomplished it.
@TheSyncImage It's not a hack, you used to be able to install an OS to the PS3. Sony patched it though, as some people were putting Microsoft Windows on to it, increasing sales for Microsoft. And Xbox is easier to hack than a PS3, all you need is a J-Tag, PS3 will need a mod chip.
@coolcar100 They removed the Other OS feature due to security concerns, not because people were installing Windows on it. In fact, you can't install Windows on the PS3, since Cell is a PowerPC processor and Windows doesn't support PowerPC instruction sets. The most you can do is emulate it with virtualization software such as VMware, but the reduced performance and the very small ammount of RAM leaves Windows effectively unusable.
@7GGonzalez Are you insane? The PS3 uses a $38 PowerPC processor from 2005. Literally anything on the PC market today is faster than that, even low-end offerings such as current (Sandy Bridge) Celeron and Pentium processors. A $800 budget is enough for high-end Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer processors, both of which run cicles around the PS3.
@NewLynxS It really depends on the task. Even by todays standards Cell has high throughput for integer and single-precision floating-point operations. Memory is definitely a limiting factor though. If its an inherently divergent task and requires little memory and can be spread across multiple processors, a cluster of sub-$300 PS3's might not be a bad idea.
If memory is a factor or it requires double-precision floating point math then x86 is the way to go. If it can run in parallel with very little or no branching, then GPU is probably the best choice.
@NerdInHisShoe It is a bad idea. Because, should this very specific (and rare) scenario be the case, a PS3 cluster is still outclassed by current GPGPU solutions.
@NewLynxS Not true. There are many classes of problems where GPUs will not do well. If there are branches and divergence in the code, it will not run well on the GPU. GPUs are essentially very large SIMD processors. Even if one thread branches, the rest of the threads must stall so that 1 thread can run. This is why it is so exciting to see Intel's new Knights Corner: 50 x86 cores on a single chip.
@7GGonzalez But its not really "that" fast. I mean, it has no hardware video acceleration so even 720p youtube videos won't play at 30fps. Its a games console.
@slimmdogg420 You can get a Blu-ray drive for your computer for just $58 on Newegg.
Also, the PS3 definitely not powerful by today's standards. It has a cheap RISC-only PowerPC processor from 2005, an equally cheap GPU based on the very outdated GeForce 7800/7900 series and just 256 MB of system memory, which isn't enough to run most modern operating systems, let alone applications alongside them. So no, it is not a computer in the same sense as a desktop or notebook is.
@Neuropraxic No, it doesn't have nine cores. It has one core and seven additional SIMD units. And no, you can't use Windows on the PS3. Cell is a PowerPC processor, not a x86 one, and Windows doesn't support PowerPC.
@milumact1 Why would you need to store "jack" on your console? Those 4 GB are more than enough for all your saved games and some music, if you want to. It still runs all the games perfectly.
@NewLynxS how many games have you played? many slightly older 360 games need AT LEAST 3 GB for ONE save game. 4 GB for anything is like a New York Blackout, and some guy hands the electrician a 9-volt battery saying, "this should last the city a while!"
@milumact1 Are you insane? That is enough for an entire game (Burnout Paradise, for instance, is just a bit bigger than 3 GB). Even the largest save game files only take up a few MB. Having 4 GB of storage is much more than enough to save all the games you'll ever have.
Where I live the 4 GB version sells much more than the 250 GB version, and nobody has ever had problems with storage on it. So please, quit being an idiot.
@NewLynxS haha! I love a good Dumbass! well ya see!, we have a little something in the 21st century called "downloadable content!" whether it's map packs, full games, etc. ALSO, games like (i don't care for it) WWE smackdown, GTA, etc. you need more space for your own custom slots and everything, sir, I'm an official microsoft developer, and I (as well as many other MS developers) hate the xbox compared to the PS3, it can't compete.
@milumact1 Thank you for the information, Captain Obvious.
If you intend to download additional content, obviously you need a hard drive. Everyone who has the money to buy a console has enough sophistication to understand that. Still, that is no prejudice for the actual games, which will still run perfectly without the hard drive.
The point remains the same, 4 GB is all the storage space you'll ever need to save games, with a lot of space left to spare (on music, for instance).
@NewLynxS my appologies for my rudeness earlier, I do understand why 4gb would be acceptable, I sometimes forget "it's not always my perspective for other people", you know? I just think It's a better deal (for one who doesn't have more friends on xbox) to pay the extra $50 up front and go for the 160gb ps3. But I can see how many would still prefer the xbox. Truce? (lolz)
@SnipingIsArtHD Who the fuck would want to do this anyway? I can already do this on the XBOX360 Before the Gaystation Tree I Dont need stuff running in the background running though. XBOX 4 LIFE and i own both consoles i regret my purchase of the ps3.
@mikeity2009 A lot of people did, you could even install Windows on the PS3, which is why PS3 is the most powerful console to this date. I own Xbox as well and I'm happy with both purchases because I'm not a retarded fanboy that thinks everything on the system is gay. And the 360 can't do it, only if you hack it (which is very easy)
@coolcar100 You can't install Windows on the PS3. Windows does not support PowerPC processors such as Cell. The only way you could run Windows XP (Vista and 7 do not run at all) on the PS3 was by installing Linux and running Windows through a virtual machine at a huge performance and compatibility cost, making the system effectively unusable.
@coolcar100 yeh ive seen windows boot up on PS3, took about 25minutes. lol. the PS3 only has 256mb RAm, its pretty much fucked to do anything. they scrimped on the RAM and GFX chip to put in a Blu-Ray player and a marketing ploy CPU. that 7-core bullshit got the fanboys pants wet even though the fanboys dont know how it works and when explained its anti-climactic its not exactly a 7-core CPU as we know it today, its based of old old multi-core tech. its pretty much a white elephant
@mitzibishi I know it's not a 7 core, that's a typical fanboy comment lol. It is a powerful machine, or was for about 3 years. Considering the graphics card only has 256mb and as you said very little Ram, the CPU has a lot of tasking to do for heavy games like BF3. The Cell processor can be powerful, if it's used correctly. It doesn't matter to me anyway, getting a gaming PC, just waiting for the fat blokes at Argos to send it out. Will be upgrading it :P
@mikeity2009 xbox is cheap shit that costs money, and it sucks poop, i have one but sucks so i gonna sell it 4 50 bucks. if someone here intrested of buying an non used Xcock 4 50 bucks, message me.
@SnipingIsArtHD Ps3 is over the top expesnive cocksucking sony fanboy shit that sucks the money dry from you with horrible free "internet that sucks monkey balls".
@DJKloop Still wrong. Cell has one core (PPE) and eight SIMD units (SPEs), not eight cores. On the PS3, one of the SPEs is disabled, making it one core and seven SIMD units.
@NewLynxS i think you will find 2 spe's are locked out. SPE's are similiar to a threaded operation and how the chip works could be compared to an 8 core processor, but each SPE is a RISC processor in its own right. so to cut the technical bullshit and relay it in laymens terms. you could say it operates like an 8 core chip would. oh one more thing, the PPE is dual threaded making it dual core also. ;)
SPEs are not "like threads", they are SIMD-organized vector procesors, just like the ones used as stream processors on GPUs. They are individual processors, but with no cache, no direct access to the system memory and a MUCH more limited instruction set.
Also, having two threads doesn't make it a dual-core processor. SMT works by processing a second task (thread) on the same cycle WHEN and IF there is enough time left, which doesn't happen often.
That way, according to Intel, it provides a maximum possible improvement of 30%. In other words, only a maximum of 30% of cycleswill have enough unused time left to process a whole other thread. Add to that the fact that, the more demanding a task is, the less cycles will be left with enough time for a second thread. It's nothing like the theoretical 100% improvement that comes from having a second core.
I.E. My i3-2310M has four threads, but is not a quad-core.
@NewLynxS a processor has a core so you have clearly stated that the SPE's are individual processors meaning multi core/multi SPE processing. you will find that the CBE chip is marketed as a ' multi core processor '. you can strip this down to however technical you want to be to make yourself right, but in the long and short of it. it is simply put as ' multi core processor ' if you treat each SPE as a RISC processor then you have multi cores. can you not see this simple fact ?
@DJKloop Why is it so hard to understand, dummy? SPEs are SIMD units, only. A core, like the PPE, also cointains a SIMD unit in itself (AltiVec unit, in Cell's case), plus a range of other structures. That includes cache, that the SPEs don't have, and a much broader instruction set. That way, a SPE is just a fraction of what a core is, and can only do a fraction of what a core can do.
If they were cores, they wouldn't be called "SPEs" or "SIMD units", they would be called "cores".
Similarly, GPUs use SIMD units very similar to the SPEs as stream processors. Does that mean AMD Cayman is a 384-core processor? NO. It means Cayman is a single-core processor with 384 SIMD units.
@NewLynxS Performance specification highlights of the Cell/B.E. processor:
• 241 million transistors
• 9 cores, 10 parallel execution threads
• >230 GFlops single precision
• Up to 25 GB/s memory bandwidth
• Up to 75 GB/s I/O bandwidth
• >230 GB/s bandwidth on the Element Interconnect Bus (EIB)
• Frequency > 4GHz
this is taken from IBM spec sheet for the processor. please note the 9 FUCKING CORES it states. if you would like to review this source, i will msg you the address - who's wrong now !?
@DJKloop You. Go to IBM website and look for CBEA documentation and whitepapers. They CLEARLY state that SPEs are SIMD vector processors, not cores. And even if this dubious source of yours decided to call them cores, they still work nothing like a core (again, no cache, no direct access to system memory, much more limited and much less versatile instruction set, much smaller hardware structure). So call it whatever you want, but SPEs do not work like cores.
@NewLynxS tinyurl(.)com/d6oorku remove the brackets, or parentheses to ass heads like you and read the first paragraph. you can read cant you ? IBM's own website clearly says in the opening paragraph 8 synergistic cores. ahem i thank you. game over. good bye and get a life, and one more thing, stop believing your own bullshit.
@DJKloop I've seen IBM refer to SPEs as cores many times. Just like when Sony sais the XDR RAM (which runs at 400 MHz) is clocked at 3.2 GHz. Companies do not have to be very specific on texts intended for average joes like this you have just sent me. But when it comes to actual documentation, it's a whole other story. The bottom like is, XDR RAM runs at 400 MHz (8 transfers per cycle = 3.2 GT/s), not 3.2 GHz. And the SPEs are SIMD units which can do just a fraction of what an actual core can.
@NewLynxS can you accept the fact that no-one cares that you believe the CBE is not a 9 core processor. In this REAL world i live in, retail is king. The fact on bare bones you see it as a dual core processor, will NOT SELL UNITS. Address it as a 9 core processor and money starts rolling in. This is how the world works my friend accept it. i can give you the IBM white paper link also stating 9 cores . continued......
@NewLynxS tinurl(.)com/bu8xn9v this is the IBM PDF spec sheet of the CBE. page 6 paragraph 3, then read page 7 paragraph 2 and 3. The SPE's have their own local memory making it operate like a core processor, add the simple fact that SPE is short for Synergistic Processor Element, did you see that funny word crop up there again ? processor, yeah thats right. the CBE is different from any other chip so stop being an intel fanboy because you cannot compare the CBE to anything else out there. end
@DJKloop 256 KB of local storage does not make it work like a core. It still has no cache, no direct bus to the system RAM and a much more limited instruction set (I can't believe I'm telling you this for the third time and you still don't get it).
And yes, you can compare it. A main processing unit aided by a number of SIMD units? GPUs have been that way for well over a decade now.
@NewLynxS and i cant believe that you are saying IBM are wrong saying their CBE has got 9 cores and SPE's are not like processors because they dont have cache (even though local storage is cache idiot!!!) . Well i think IBM need to speak to you and see where they are going wrong as you seem to know more than they do. Exactly how many processors have you designed and made ? none ! so listen to the experts, if they say its a core, ITS A GODDAMN CORE! you really have failed....bye
@DJKloop I'm not saying it's not a processor, it is a processor. I'm saying it's not a CORE. Being able to process data doesn't mean it is a core. A GPU stream processor can process data, but it's not a core. A sound card can process data, but it's not a core. Similarly, a SPE can process data, but it's not a core.
And the SPE's local storage is not cache, it's just memory (SDRAM). Cache isn't just memory, it's a much more complex structure.
@NewLynxS Please give your definition of 'core'. If we consider a cores to be an independent processor, then the SPE's definitely are cores. It doesn't matter that they use a SIMD instruction set, and use local-store memory. They are entirely independent of each other and the PPU.
@NerdInHisShoe Just being an independent processor doesn't qualify it as a core, in the same sense as the core of a Sandy Bridge or Thuban processor. Otherwise, a GF110 chip would be a 624-core processor only by counting stream processors, ROPs and TMUs.
The point here is that Cell, despite having eight (nine with the disabled SPE) individual processing elements, is not the same as an Intel or AMD processor with eight cores, which is what people usually believe it is.
Just to illustrate... When you think of the Cell on the PS3, with one PPE and seven SPEs, you have eight SIMD units, but just one complete "core" in the common sense. When you take a eight-core Sandy Bridge chip (or any other usual x86 processor) as example, you also have eight SIMD units, but eight complete "cores" in the common sense. That's the difference I try to point out to people.
@NewLynxS But you're not defining what a 'complete core' is. Going with your Sandy Bridge example, each core has its own execution units, register set, and APIC. Is that what defines a core? That's basically how its defined in Intel's docs (Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developers Manual Volume 1 section 2.2.9). Each SPE also has its own execution units, register set, APIC, memory controller and local store.
@NerdInHisShoe The bottom line is, can a SPE do everything a common x86 core can? No, it's much less versatile. So regardless of definitions, the point is to show people how a Cell processor is not the same as a eight-core (or nine-core) x86 processor.
@NewLynxS But now you're arguing capabilities, not whether or not SPE's on the same piece of silicon are cores. True, the SPU is less versatile than an x86 processor, but it can still do the same tasks, just inefficiently. Just because the Cell processor is an asymmetric design doesn't mean the SPE's are not cores.
@NerdInHisShoe Again, you're missing the point. To me and you, it really doesn't matter whether the SPEs can be called cores or not. We both know exactly how it works, what name we give to them changes nothing. The point is, the average joe which comes here and sees someone saying Cell is a "nine-core processor" will probably understand this in terms of standard x86 cores, like Intel and AMD, which is very misleading. That's what I'm concerned with.
To explain the difference... First, cache is transparent to software. In other words, software cannot detect or access it. Second, cache loads data by itself, independent of the processing units it's associated with or the software they're running. For that to happen, they must have additional logic to predict which data to load and copy it from the RAM.
SPE local storage is not trasparent to software, doesn't work by itself and has no additional logic, just memory chips.
@NewLynxS IBM state 9 cores yet you still argue its not, how much of an idiot are you ? you lost the argument days ago when i gave you EVIDENCE, you have NO EVIDENCE. I dont know why you are still trying to justify your argument! I will take IBM's technical relevance over your bullshit any day along with the rest of the computing world. you sound like a failed technician no longer needed at your last job.
@Dant2142 fair enough but you have to appreciate the fact that this CBE is a brand new chip, so comparing its cores to intel or nvidia is like comparing a potato to lego brick. you cannot make a direct comparison with the CBE chip to how any other intel/amd chip may work. all because the SPE doesnt have direct access to ram doesnt make it any less of a core. it just has to process to the main ram a different way. but im sure if you told IBM they're wrong, i wouldnt look the silly one
@isunktheship if you read all the above or below comments, you will see i have. the first comment was a joke which some people took WAY too seriously. besides you cant add GPU because its a separate chip from the main processor being the CBE. ;)
Hehehehe Ooh yes it can. And guess what, M$ allows you to do whatever teh f*** you want with your console, where as Sony simply takes your rights to using Linux for example.
They dont go suing everybody for having a modified console. for example, I have 2 Jtagged consoles, 1 original, and the other done with the RGH. #hasaPS3&360.
if IBM have such great CPU technology dont you think by now they would be a player in the home CPU market, as big as AMD and Intel. funny how theyr doing nothing with this amazing tech
@rgbreeding PS3 cpu doesnt have multi CORES. Actually, the Cray super computers of the 1980s had a design remarkably similar in concept to that of the Cell processor itself. The SPEs used in the Cell processor are each SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data), 128-bit
vector processors. Vector processors are designed to quickly process several pieces of data at
once. They were commonly used in the 1980s in large
@DarkprinX2500 I doubt Microsoft would make a OS that would work on the PS3 for many reasons. One of them being that they would help their rivals become more popular and they wouldnt want that.
@itsmesomeguy And that's why Sony implemented the feature themselves in the first place? Yeah... You obviously didn't do any research. Check the date on the video. It was before Sony patched the Other OS Feature due to "Security Concerns."
@itsmesomeguy And that's why Sony implemented the feature themselves in the first place? Yeah... You obviously didn't do any research. Check the date on the video. It was before Sony patched the Other OS Feature due to "Security Concerns."
@D4rkst4r235 dude all i said was i thought...not i know...thanks for clarifying anyway..... so in the end if you bypass the patch and do it anyway its still illegal right? make sense!
@itsmesomeguy Well if you buy an old PS3 fat that hasn't had its firmware updated(Its going to be really hard to find one of those) it would have the Other OS feature. Since Sony is the one who implemented it in the first place they stated that you didn't have to update the firmware and you could keep the Other OS feature you just wouldn't be able to access PSN. I was actually one of the few users who actually used it and had Ubuntu installed...
why the hell did they patch off linux? just because not many people used it doesnt mean no one used it or will eventually install it and try it out. i want to do this to my ps3 now but ohh guess not. WTF
@ryan123456781 First, because it's not a nine-core processor, it's a 2005 low-power single-core processor with eight additional SIMD units. Second, because it's not "Uber HD Graphics", even entry-level GPUs today offer you better graphics than the PS3 does. And third, because Cell is a PowerPC processor, and Windows doesn't support the PowerPC instruction set, while Apple owns a closed platform and currently only uses Intel x86 CPUs. There would be no market for it.
if it can do all of this why the fuck havent they advertised theraw power of the system. im an xbox whore but looking at what the ps3 can do i honestly believe microsoft needs to seriously step up their game and bring something awe inspiring to the table or it will be blown out of the water in a couple years. the way its going sony has a system to last another 3-5 years while microsoft's xbox doesnt have the hardware to go more than another 2
didnt they remove this a while back ?.
speedmasteruk1 4 days ago
I installed Linux on my ps3 so I could run minecraft without shitty fps and it actually worked better than I thought it would. Great vid :D
DUBstepRuleZ11 1 week ago 2
@DUBstepRuleZ11 how did u install it?
MarcFJensen 5 days ago
PC is way better then PS3... Just sayin because the PS3 has low FPS and can't be upgraded to new graphics cards. Plus, why would you turn a console into a computer? It's for gaming not watching porn on HD lol
WAFFLESxDv 2 weeks ago
@WAFFLESxDv
That's a retarded analogy, you're saying all you could use linux for on a PS3 is watching porn?
videooven 2 weeks ago
@videooven Yea, rest is full of crap. I seen how much FPS you get on PS3 vs my PC... Mine I just got gets over 40 FPS in GTA4 and GTA4 on PS3 only gets around 30 and lags at times. Plus, you don't get the new flash player on PS3 to watch HD videos lol so I guess it's for storage :P
WAFFLESxDv 2 weeks ago
@WAFFLESxDv That's only one of the benefits.
GequalsZ 2 weeks ago
is linux better/ faster than bsd or lion or anything else, strictly speaking of speed, ease of use, and security?
boogiebuddy01 2 weeks ago
can u still play games onn it
tmaple123 2 weeks ago
FUCK THIS console fanboys who thin ps 3 can be a goodam pc
ARGH
gotohell#
gmxgamer 2 weeks ago
Not any more ;]. Thank you sony for deleting other OS
Mardukson 2 weeks ago
long live sony
3p1cBlu3 3 weeks ago
cant you already do most of those things on the ps3
theicedragonify 3 weeks ago
@theicedragonify
Not all.
wiigamer136 2 weeks ago
@theicedragonify Yea, but people want to be cheap about things seeing as how GOOD PC's cost over 600 or even more.
WAFFLESxDv 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BlastGrip 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
BlastGrip 3 weeks ago
lol top running in the back ground.
Ubernoob85 3 weeks ago
wtf?! i didnt know i owned a super computer!!
Sikesterbeast 4 weeks ago
@Sikesterbeast you dont. its all marketting bullshit like PS2s "emotion engine" and SEGA MegaDrives "BLAST processing"
mitzibishi 3 weeks ago
1:08 "We have got game running" oh snap, they're playing COD or Uncharted in the background while on Linux! ``Gain is your instant messenger`` oh never mind its just crappy Gaim........
kevinbollers2 1 month ago
R.I.P Linux on ps3
hawakaso 1 month ago
So basically some dude hacked the ps3 and put a os on it
well i guess xbox will never get this since it cant get hacked
TheSyncImage 1 month ago
@TheSyncImage Google free60
NerdInHisShoe 1 month ago
@TheSyncImage dude, no one would wanna run an os on an xbox :') hardware coulnt kill a fly nevermind run a decent os , the ps3 was designed for this to be possible, witch is a great design feature and one which no other games console could manage.
boogman250 1 month ago
@boogman250 that why they put only 256mb of RAM in the PS3? would be a really slow OS dude
mitzibishi 3 weeks ago
@mitzibishi yeh, its xms ram , runs about three times faster than average ddr3 ram andwhen running something like linux, huge amounts of ram arent needed, right now im running windows 8 and its using 7.8GB ram, yeh with my linux os's 1gb is more than enough
boogman250 3 weeks ago
@boogman250 shame the PS3 RAM aint fast enough to even run cross game chat. and Linux on the PS3, it runs worse than a cheap netbook, its just a gimmick so people can say "ooh look ive booted it, cant do much else though." maybe play minesweeper or open a notepad or calculator, not all at once though or it will grind to a halt. besides Sony is dropping support for it, just like they dropped updating on that awfull PS3 web-browser gimmick thingy.
mitzibishi 3 weeks ago
@boogman250 The XDR RAM used on the PS3 has a maximum bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. That's exactly the same as a common DDR3-1600 setup, but for a much higher price.
And as of today, DDR3 can achieve as much as 76.8 GB/s (DDR3-2400 on four channels, on the LGA-2011 platform), three times faster than the PS3's XDR.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
@TheSyncImage Lol are you a fucking moron?
Soulintent26 1 month ago
@TheSyncImage xbox is so easy to get hacked no one cares about it, ps3 is so hard to get hacked that only the top hackers took the challenge to do it and only 1 group has successfully accomplished it.
Edvardas96 4 weeks ago
@TheSyncImage It's not a hack, you used to be able to install an OS to the PS3. Sony patched it though, as some people were putting Microsoft Windows on to it, increasing sales for Microsoft. And Xbox is easier to hack than a PS3, all you need is a J-Tag, PS3 will need a mod chip.
coolcar100 3 weeks ago
@coolcar100 They removed the Other OS feature due to security concerns, not because people were installing Windows on it. In fact, you can't install Windows on the PS3, since Cell is a PowerPC processor and Windows doesn't support PowerPC instruction sets. The most you can do is emulate it with virtualization software such as VMware, but the reduced performance and the very small ammount of RAM leaves Windows effectively unusable.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
My p.c is right next to my ps3 running on the same 42" Toshiba led TV :)
kalosanin2 1 month ago
Just get a computer ლ(ಠ_ಠლ)
iOSreaper 1 month ago 33
@iOSreaper the ps3 is around 200-300 dollars, and for a pc that fast, it would cost around 800 dollars, so its a win. So thats why it is a win
7GGonzalez 2 weeks ago
@7GGonzalez Are you insane? The PS3 uses a $38 PowerPC processor from 2005. Literally anything on the PC market today is faster than that, even low-end offerings such as current (Sandy Bridge) Celeron and Pentium processors. A $800 budget is enough for high-end Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer processors, both of which run cicles around the PS3.
NewLynxS 2 weeks ago
@NewLynxS It really depends on the task. Even by todays standards Cell has high throughput for integer and single-precision floating-point operations. Memory is definitely a limiting factor though. If its an inherently divergent task and requires little memory and can be spread across multiple processors, a cluster of sub-$300 PS3's might not be a bad idea.
NerdInHisShoe 2 weeks ago
If memory is a factor or it requires double-precision floating point math then x86 is the way to go. If it can run in parallel with very little or no branching, then GPU is probably the best choice.
NerdInHisShoe 2 weeks ago
@NerdInHisShoe It is a bad idea. Because, should this very specific (and rare) scenario be the case, a PS3 cluster is still outclassed by current GPGPU solutions.
NewLynxS 2 weeks ago
@NewLynxS Not true. There are many classes of problems where GPUs will not do well. If there are branches and divergence in the code, it will not run well on the GPU. GPUs are essentially very large SIMD processors. Even if one thread branches, the rest of the threads must stall so that 1 thread can run. This is why it is so exciting to see Intel's new Knights Corner: 50 x86 cores on a single chip.
NerdInHisShoe 2 weeks ago
@7GGonzalez But its not really "that" fast. I mean, it has no hardware video acceleration so even 720p youtube videos won't play at 30fps. Its a games console.
iOSreaper 2 weeks ago
@iOSreaper well your pretty much getting a very powerful pc for just 250 if you do this to a ps3
RamyIsAwesome 2 weeks ago
@iOSreaper PS3 is a cheap and powerful computer and it has a bluray player.Find a PC with a bluray that cheap you wont.
slimmdogg420 5 days ago
@slimmdogg420 You can get a Blu-ray drive for your computer for just $58 on Newegg.
Also, the PS3 definitely not powerful by today's standards. It has a cheap RISC-only PowerPC processor from 2005, an equally cheap GPU based on the very outdated GeForce 7800/7900 series and just 256 MB of system memory, which isn't enough to run most modern operating systems, let alone applications alongside them. So no, it is not a computer in the same sense as a desktop or notebook is.
NewLynxS 4 days ago
@69RsOwn Chuck Testa.
TheElderTrollsV 1 month ago
the ps3 has 9 fuckin cores?! can i put windows on it?
Neuropraxic 1 month ago
@Neuropraxic No, it doesn't have nine cores. It has one core and seven additional SIMD units. And no, you can't use Windows on the PS3. Cell is a PowerPC processor, not a x86 one, and Windows doesn't support PowerPC.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS oh :/ ps3 is still badass though.
Neuropraxic 1 month ago
i just took an old broken HDD off of another xbox, and put A SATA I HDD in the case, and TADA! 2TB HDD space.
blackner2424 1 month ago
@jcytee071 ps3 160 gb = $250
xbox 250 gb = $300
xbox 4gb for $200 can't store jack!
PS3 FTW!!!
milumact1 1 month ago
@milumact1 Why would you need to store "jack" on your console? Those 4 GB are more than enough for all your saved games and some music, if you want to. It still runs all the games perfectly.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS how many games have you played? many slightly older 360 games need AT LEAST 3 GB for ONE save game. 4 GB for anything is like a New York Blackout, and some guy hands the electrician a 9-volt battery saying, "this should last the city a while!"
milumact1 1 month ago
@milumact1 Are you insane? That is enough for an entire game (Burnout Paradise, for instance, is just a bit bigger than 3 GB). Even the largest save game files only take up a few MB. Having 4 GB of storage is much more than enough to save all the games you'll ever have.
Where I live the 4 GB version sells much more than the 250 GB version, and nobody has ever had problems with storage on it. So please, quit being an idiot.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS haha! I love a good Dumbass! well ya see!, we have a little something in the 21st century called "downloadable content!" whether it's map packs, full games, etc. ALSO, games like (i don't care for it) WWE smackdown, GTA, etc. you need more space for your own custom slots and everything, sir, I'm an official microsoft developer, and I (as well as many other MS developers) hate the xbox compared to the PS3, it can't compete.
milumact1 1 month ago
@milumact1 Thank you for the information, Captain Obvious.
If you intend to download additional content, obviously you need a hard drive. Everyone who has the money to buy a console has enough sophistication to understand that. Still, that is no prejudice for the actual games, which will still run perfectly without the hard drive.
The point remains the same, 4 GB is all the storage space you'll ever need to save games, with a lot of space left to spare (on music, for instance).
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS my appologies for my rudeness earlier, I do understand why 4gb would be acceptable, I sometimes forget "it's not always my perspective for other people", you know? I just think It's a better deal (for one who doesn't have more friends on xbox) to pay the extra $50 up front and go for the 160gb ps3. But I can see how many would still prefer the xbox. Truce? (lolz)
milumact1 1 month ago
@jcytee071 Still sucks the only reason i got it is for the blue ray and SOME decent games on the side.
mikeity2009 1 month ago
Oh look the PS3 can't do this any more.
TBoberts 1 month ago
a hackers dream
excriminal1 1 month ago
Ps3 Rocks!!
arvindbd 1 month ago 24
@arvindbd uh no xbox rules
jameskim0517 1 month ago
@arvindbd hell yeah bro! :D
RandomGaming26 3 weeks ago
Can this run on PS3 slim? I heard that the slim does not support 3rd party O.S.
vdochev 1 month ago
@vdochev You cant do it at all anymore i believe
MrAnonymousHQ 1 month ago
@vdochev not any more, fir this reason
shoopwhoopX 1 month ago
Real mature, everybody. Let's start arguing like 5 year olds over whether the Xbox or PS3 is better.
"Mines better than yours", "No way dude, mines totally better cause..."
Honestly. You sound like fucking toddlers. Grow up.
Haywtfisthis 1 month ago
any1` else see alot of hackers mkin viruses?from there ps3
SHAWN089 1 month ago
HAHAHAH!!! FUCK XCOCK!!!!!
SnipingIsArtHD 1 month ago
@SnipingIsArtHD Who the fuck would want to do this anyway? I can already do this on the XBOX360 Before the Gaystation Tree I Dont need stuff running in the background running though. XBOX 4 LIFE and i own both consoles i regret my purchase of the ps3.
mikeity2009 1 month ago
@mikeity2009 A lot of people did, you could even install Windows on the PS3, which is why PS3 is the most powerful console to this date. I own Xbox as well and I'm happy with both purchases because I'm not a retarded fanboy that thinks everything on the system is gay. And the 360 can't do it, only if you hack it (which is very easy)
coolcar100 1 month ago
@coolcar100 You can't install Windows on the PS3. Windows does not support PowerPC processors such as Cell. The only way you could run Windows XP (Vista and 7 do not run at all) on the PS3 was by installing Linux and running Windows through a virtual machine at a huge performance and compatibility cost, making the system effectively unusable.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@coolcar100 yeh ive seen windows boot up on PS3, took about 25minutes. lol. the PS3 only has 256mb RAm, its pretty much fucked to do anything. they scrimped on the RAM and GFX chip to put in a Blu-Ray player and a marketing ploy CPU. that 7-core bullshit got the fanboys pants wet even though the fanboys dont know how it works and when explained its anti-climactic its not exactly a 7-core CPU as we know it today, its based of old old multi-core tech. its pretty much a white elephant
mitzibishi 3 weeks ago
@mitzibishi I know it's not a 7 core, that's a typical fanboy comment lol. It is a powerful machine, or was for about 3 years. Considering the graphics card only has 256mb and as you said very little Ram, the CPU has a lot of tasking to do for heavy games like BF3. The Cell processor can be powerful, if it's used correctly. It doesn't matter to me anyway, getting a gaming PC, just waiting for the fat blokes at Argos to send it out. Will be upgrading it :P
coolcar100 3 weeks ago
@mikeity2009 xbox is cheap shit that costs money, and it sucks poop, i have one but sucks so i gonna sell it 4 50 bucks. if someone here intrested of buying an non used Xcock 4 50 bucks, message me.
SnipingIsArtHD 1 month ago
@SnipingIsArtHD Ps3 is over the top expesnive cocksucking sony fanboy shit that sucks the money dry from you with horrible free "internet that sucks monkey balls".
mikeity2009 1 month ago
@ 1:53 did he say 9 cores!!??? the cell only has 8, unless he's on about chuck norris's ps3
DJKloop 2 months ago in playlist PS3 Info
@DJKloop Still wrong. Cell has one core (PPE) and eight SIMD units (SPEs), not eight cores. On the PS3, one of the SPEs is disabled, making it one core and seven SIMD units.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS i think you will find 2 spe's are locked out. SPE's are similiar to a threaded operation and how the chip works could be compared to an 8 core processor, but each SPE is a RISC processor in its own right. so to cut the technical bullshit and relay it in laymens terms. you could say it operates like an 8 core chip would. oh one more thing, the PPE is dual threaded making it dual core also. ;)
DJKloop 2 months ago
@DJKloop Wrong yet again.
SPEs are not "like threads", they are SIMD-organized vector procesors, just like the ones used as stream processors on GPUs. They are individual processors, but with no cache, no direct access to the system memory and a MUCH more limited instruction set.
Also, having two threads doesn't make it a dual-core processor. SMT works by processing a second task (thread) on the same cycle WHEN and IF there is enough time left, which doesn't happen often.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@DJKloop Continued...
That way, according to Intel, it provides a maximum possible improvement of 30%. In other words, only a maximum of 30% of cycleswill have enough unused time left to process a whole other thread. Add to that the fact that, the more demanding a task is, the less cycles will be left with enough time for a second thread. It's nothing like the theoretical 100% improvement that comes from having a second core.
I.E. My i3-2310M has four threads, but is not a quad-core.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS a processor has a core so you have clearly stated that the SPE's are individual processors meaning multi core/multi SPE processing. you will find that the CBE chip is marketed as a ' multi core processor '. you can strip this down to however technical you want to be to make yourself right, but in the long and short of it. it is simply put as ' multi core processor ' if you treat each SPE as a RISC processor then you have multi cores. can you not see this simple fact ?
DJKloop 2 months ago
@DJKloop Why is it so hard to understand, dummy? SPEs are SIMD units, only. A core, like the PPE, also cointains a SIMD unit in itself (AltiVec unit, in Cell's case), plus a range of other structures. That includes cache, that the SPEs don't have, and a much broader instruction set. That way, a SPE is just a fraction of what a core is, and can only do a fraction of what a core can do.
If they were cores, they wouldn't be called "SPEs" or "SIMD units", they would be called "cores".
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@DJKloop Continued...
Similarly, GPUs use SIMD units very similar to the SPEs as stream processors. Does that mean AMD Cayman is a 384-core processor? NO. It means Cayman is a single-core processor with 384 SIMD units.
NewLynxS 2 months ago
@NewLynxS Performance specification highlights of the Cell/B.E. processor:
• 241 million transistors
• 9 cores, 10 parallel execution threads
• >230 GFlops single precision
• Up to 25 GB/s memory bandwidth
• Up to 75 GB/s I/O bandwidth
• >230 GB/s bandwidth on the Element Interconnect Bus (EIB)
• Frequency > 4GHz
this is taken from IBM spec sheet for the processor. please note the 9 FUCKING CORES it states. if you would like to review this source, i will msg you the address - who's wrong now !?
DJKloop 2 months ago
@DJKloop You. Go to IBM website and look for CBEA documentation and whitepapers. They CLEARLY state that SPEs are SIMD vector processors, not cores. And even if this dubious source of yours decided to call them cores, they still work nothing like a core (again, no cache, no direct access to system memory, much more limited and much less versatile instruction set, much smaller hardware structure). So call it whatever you want, but SPEs do not work like cores.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS is a ps3 faster than...say, a new macbook pro, or standard pc? ps3 states 230 GFlops, mbp is 1.4!!
wrathallll 1 month ago
@NewLynxS tinyurl(.)com/d6oorku remove the brackets, or parentheses to ass heads like you and read the first paragraph. you can read cant you ? IBM's own website clearly says in the opening paragraph 8 synergistic cores. ahem i thank you. game over. good bye and get a life, and one more thing, stop believing your own bullshit.
DJKloop 1 month ago
@DJKloop I've seen IBM refer to SPEs as cores many times. Just like when Sony sais the XDR RAM (which runs at 400 MHz) is clocked at 3.2 GHz. Companies do not have to be very specific on texts intended for average joes like this you have just sent me. But when it comes to actual documentation, it's a whole other story. The bottom like is, XDR RAM runs at 400 MHz (8 transfers per cycle = 3.2 GT/s), not 3.2 GHz. And the SPEs are SIMD units which can do just a fraction of what an actual core can.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Says*
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS can you accept the fact that no-one cares that you believe the CBE is not a 9 core processor. In this REAL world i live in, retail is king. The fact on bare bones you see it as a dual core processor, will NOT SELL UNITS. Address it as a 9 core processor and money starts rolling in. This is how the world works my friend accept it. i can give you the IBM white paper link also stating 9 cores . continued......
DJKloop 1 month ago
@NewLynxS tinurl(.)com/bu8xn9v this is the IBM PDF spec sheet of the CBE. page 6 paragraph 3, then read page 7 paragraph 2 and 3. The SPE's have their own local memory making it operate like a core processor, add the simple fact that SPE is short for Synergistic Processor Element, did you see that funny word crop up there again ? processor, yeah thats right. the CBE is different from any other chip so stop being an intel fanboy because you cannot compare the CBE to anything else out there. end
DJKloop 1 month ago
@DJKloop 256 KB of local storage does not make it work like a core. It still has no cache, no direct bus to the system RAM and a much more limited instruction set (I can't believe I'm telling you this for the third time and you still don't get it).
And yes, you can compare it. A main processing unit aided by a number of SIMD units? GPUs have been that way for well over a decade now.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS and i cant believe that you are saying IBM are wrong saying their CBE has got 9 cores and SPE's are not like processors because they dont have cache (even though local storage is cache idiot!!!) . Well i think IBM need to speak to you and see where they are going wrong as you seem to know more than they do. Exactly how many processors have you designed and made ? none ! so listen to the experts, if they say its a core, ITS A GODDAMN CORE! you really have failed....bye
DJKloop 1 month ago
@DJKloop I'm not saying it's not a processor, it is a processor. I'm saying it's not a CORE. Being able to process data doesn't mean it is a core. A GPU stream processor can process data, but it's not a core. A sound card can process data, but it's not a core. Similarly, a SPE can process data, but it's not a core.
And the SPE's local storage is not cache, it's just memory (SDRAM). Cache isn't just memory, it's a much more complex structure.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS Please give your definition of 'core'. If we consider a cores to be an independent processor, then the SPE's definitely are cores. It doesn't matter that they use a SIMD instruction set, and use local-store memory. They are entirely independent of each other and the PPU.
NerdInHisShoe 1 month ago
@NerdInHisShoe Just being an independent processor doesn't qualify it as a core, in the same sense as the core of a Sandy Bridge or Thuban processor. Otherwise, a GF110 chip would be a 624-core processor only by counting stream processors, ROPs and TMUs.
The point here is that Cell, despite having eight (nine with the disabled SPE) individual processing elements, is not the same as an Intel or AMD processor with eight cores, which is what people usually believe it is.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NerdInHisShoe Continued...
Just to illustrate... When you think of the Cell on the PS3, with one PPE and seven SPEs, you have eight SIMD units, but just one complete "core" in the common sense. When you take a eight-core Sandy Bridge chip (or any other usual x86 processor) as example, you also have eight SIMD units, but eight complete "cores" in the common sense. That's the difference I try to point out to people.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS But you're not defining what a 'complete core' is. Going with your Sandy Bridge example, each core has its own execution units, register set, and APIC. Is that what defines a core? That's basically how its defined in Intel's docs (Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developers Manual Volume 1 section 2.2.9). Each SPE also has its own execution units, register set, APIC, memory controller and local store.
NerdInHisShoe 1 month ago
(Continued) If they were just extra execution units like Altivec then I would agree with you, but they're not. They're a lot more than that.
NerdInHisShoe 1 month ago
@NerdInHisShoe The bottom line is, can a SPE do everything a common x86 core can? No, it's much less versatile. So regardless of definitions, the point is to show people how a Cell processor is not the same as a eight-core (or nine-core) x86 processor.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@NewLynxS But now you're arguing capabilities, not whether or not SPE's on the same piece of silicon are cores. True, the SPU is less versatile than an x86 processor, but it can still do the same tasks, just inefficiently. Just because the Cell processor is an asymmetric design doesn't mean the SPE's are not cores.
NerdInHisShoe 3 weeks ago
@NerdInHisShoe Again, you're missing the point. To me and you, it really doesn't matter whether the SPEs can be called cores or not. We both know exactly how it works, what name we give to them changes nothing. The point is, the average joe which comes here and sees someone saying Cell is a "nine-core processor" will probably understand this in terms of standard x86 cores, like Intel and AMD, which is very misleading. That's what I'm concerned with.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
@DJKloop Continued...
To explain the difference... First, cache is transparent to software. In other words, software cannot detect or access it. Second, cache loads data by itself, independent of the processing units it's associated with or the software they're running. For that to happen, they must have additional logic to predict which data to load and copy it from the RAM.
SPE local storage is not trasparent to software, doesn't work by itself and has no additional logic, just memory chips.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NewLynxS IBM state 9 cores yet you still argue its not, how much of an idiot are you ? you lost the argument days ago when i gave you EVIDENCE, you have NO EVIDENCE. I dont know why you are still trying to justify your argument! I will take IBM's technical relevance over your bullshit any day along with the rest of the computing world. you sound like a failed technician no longer needed at your last job.
DJKloop 1 month ago
@DJKloop I agree with NewLynxS here, by the defnition of "core" you/IBM wants to use, the average gaming PC would have over 1200 cores...
Dant2142 1 month ago
@Dant2142 fair enough but you have to appreciate the fact that this CBE is a brand new chip, so comparing its cores to intel or nvidia is like comparing a potato to lego brick. you cannot make a direct comparison with the CBE chip to how any other intel/amd chip may work. all because the SPE doesnt have direct access to ram doesnt make it any less of a core. it just has to process to the main ram a different way. but im sure if you told IBM they're wrong, i wouldnt look the silly one
DJKloop 1 month ago
@DJKloop 9 cores, do your hw. More if we want to include GPU :P
isunktheship 1 month ago
@isunktheship if you read all the above or below comments, you will see i have. the first comment was a joke which some people took WAY too seriously. besides you cant add GPU because its a separate chip from the main processor being the CBE. ;)
DJKloop 1 month ago
to bad you cant do it anymore.....
MegaTimebomb098 2 months ago
how come a gaming pc is better
adamxbomb69 2 months ago
CAN THE XBOX DO THAT??? NOPE!!!!!!!!!!
69RsOwn 2 months ago 23
@69RsOwn YES IT DOES??? YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ZeroDriverz 2 months ago
@69RsOwn LOLOLOLOLOL PS3 can not use linux no more andactually if hacked the xbox can do that.
pspmad1 1 month ago
@69RsOwn
Hehehehe Ooh yes it can. And guess what, M$ allows you to do whatever teh f*** you want with your console, where as Sony simply takes your rights to using Linux for example.
ItzZane 1 month ago
@ItzZane "M$ allows you to do whatever teh f*** you want with your console" Ummm.... no they really don't. #hasa360
krazykhrisya 1 month ago
@krazykhrisya
Uuhhh yeah they do.
They dont go suing everybody for having a modified console. for example, I have 2 Jtagged consoles, 1 original, and the other done with the RGH. #hasaPS3&360.
ItzZane 1 month ago
stop it at 3:39 and look at his face
whoisShock 2 months ago
Comment removed
travincal1 2 months ago
SONY PLEASE BRING BACK THIS OPTION I WANT LINUX :D
xXE4GLEyEXx 3 months ago
Sony released firmware v3.21 that disabled the feature, disallowing users from installing the Linux operating system.
FUCK!
Truemoderate 3 months ago
@Truemoderate You can still do it if you know what you're doing
th3m8ngtree 2 months ago
too bad all this went to shit and we all get nothing now.
d3tach3d 3 months ago
if IBM have such great CPU technology dont you think by now they would be a player in the home CPU market, as big as AMD and Intel. funny how theyr doing nothing with this amazing tech
mitzibishi 3 months ago
@mitzibishi they own the server world idiot look it up and servers make ten times more money a year then the desktop market lolz
*sources* look it up scrub*
fortinuex 3 months ago
lol what a joke. the multicore technology is lifted from the 1980s not the 2000s
mitzibishi 3 months ago
@mitzibishi
multicore processors in the 1980s.
LOL, RISC chips dont count as multicore.
More than two cores on one die.
"NOT threads, co-processors, RISC,, or dual CPUs.
That technology is definitely from this century.
It may not of been necessarily Intel but it surely wasnt the 1980s.
rgbreeding 3 months ago
@rgbreeding PS3 cpu doesnt have multi CORES. Actually, the Cray super computers of the 1980s had a design remarkably similar in concept to that of the Cell processor itself. The SPEs used in the Cell processor are each SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data), 128-bit
vector processors. Vector processors are designed to quickly process several pieces of data at
once. They were commonly used in the 1980s in large
mitzibishi 3 months ago
shut up the lot of ya, like brother and sister, so what, its only a fucking processor, no-one give two shits!
torpedobelly 3 months ago
what if you want windows xp
DarkprinX2500 3 months ago
@DarkprinX2500 Virtual machine via linux?
jawbraeka 3 months ago
@jawbraeka what if you want DOS 3.1
so you can play the original "leisure suit larry" in the glory of all 256 colors... And 8-bit sound.
rgbreeding 2 months ago
@rgbreeding dosbox via a windows environment on ps3 or linux with wine i suppose
jawbraeka 2 months ago
@DarkprinX2500 I doubt Microsoft would make a OS that would work on the PS3 for many reasons. One of them being that they would help their rivals become more popular and they wouldnt want that.
AnimeSongsNetwork 3 months ago
@DarkprinX2500 then u fuck yourself.
shadow444222 3 months ago
@DarkprinX2500 xp pro will use multi threads or cores
DJKloop 2 months ago
im too high to be this smart lmao
sonofscars 4 months ago
Didn't sony disable the ability to run Linux after their network was hacked?
TheStuartWallace 4 months ago
... i thought this was illegal
itsmesomeguy 4 months ago
@itsmesomeguy And that's why Sony implemented the feature themselves in the first place? Yeah... You obviously didn't do any research. Check the date on the video. It was before Sony patched the Other OS Feature due to "Security Concerns."
D4rkst4r235 4 months ago
@itsmesomeguy And that's why Sony implemented the feature themselves in the first place? Yeah... You obviously didn't do any research. Check the date on the video. It was before Sony patched the Other OS Feature due to "Security Concerns."
D4rkst4r235 4 months ago
@D4rkst4r235 dude all i said was i thought...not i know...thanks for clarifying anyway..... so in the end if you bypass the patch and do it anyway its still illegal right? make sense!
itsmesomeguy 4 months ago
@itsmesomeguy Well if you buy an old PS3 fat that hasn't had its firmware updated(Its going to be really hard to find one of those) it would have the Other OS feature. Since Sony is the one who implemented it in the first place they stated that you didn't have to update the firmware and you could keep the Other OS feature you just wouldn't be able to access PSN. I was actually one of the few users who actually used it and had Ubuntu installed...
D4rkst4r235 4 months ago
ps3 should of keep this
ANDREWFLASCH 4 months ago
@andonorg but can it play crysis?
bryan350z 4 months ago
@andonorg browse the web, check email, and watch bangbus videos on a large tv.
bryan350z 4 months ago 9
dead link
quintensky 4 months ago
Does this still work?
ibehaywire 4 months ago
Go ps3!!!
xUBERxG3RMAN 4 months ago
i must downloade linux with 120 kbs per secound becouse there is no server for germany that sucks :(
niconator96 4 months ago
why the hell did they patch off linux? just because not many people used it doesnt mean no one used it or will eventually install it and try it out. i want to do this to my ps3 now but ohh guess not. WTF
WCGwkf 4 months ago
@WCGwkf it was because a hacker found a way to run illegal games through the otherOS feature, its either they lose millions or keep it
AbdallahProductions 4 months ago
but can it run minecraft?
MirathGames 4 months ago
@MirathGames thats why im here too
agent2539 4 months ago
@beda402 I dont speak Kos cook cum dumpster or whatever you said.
xThexMaXx 5 months ago
will you be able to use a ps2/Wii emulator within the linux operating system and will the games run smoothly?
blessi360 5 months ago
lol, SUper Computer? Sure.... PS3 Is Super...
xThexMaXx 5 months ago
i heard sony got rid of this feature?
ganjaking187 5 months ago
they should make a wiistationbox
khnbismillah 5 months ago
FFFFF, 9 Cores, Uber HD Graphics, Why dont Sony go into PC component design!?
Its there own 9 core processor, and HD Graphics, Imagine how much it would be sold
ryan123456781 5 months ago
@ryan123456781 First, because it's not a nine-core processor, it's a 2005 low-power single-core processor with eight additional SIMD units. Second, because it's not "Uber HD Graphics", even entry-level GPUs today offer you better graphics than the PS3 does. And third, because Cell is a PowerPC processor, and Windows doesn't support the PowerPC instruction set, while Apple owns a closed platform and currently only uses Intel x86 CPUs. There would be no market for it.
NewLynxS 5 months ago
they need 2 make a system that plays all games like xbox, ps2
94deathlock 5 months ago
@Matthington10 Beats us on the Xbox, doesn't even have Youtube..
TheRenegadeCB 5 months ago
and now they took the feature out. if ps4 doesn't have google android os, or linux, i will be pissed.
01iamaprofessional 5 months ago
i now how to play ps2 games on a ps3
matko1594 5 months ago
i like ps3 and xbox 360 the best sorry pc gamers but i hate pc
2406Gamer 5 months ago
if it can do all of this why the fuck havent they advertised theraw power of the system. im an xbox whore but looking at what the ps3 can do i honestly believe microsoft needs to seriously step up their game and bring something awe inspiring to the table or it will be blown out of the water in a couple years. the way its going sony has a system to last another 3-5 years while microsoft's xbox doesnt have the hardware to go more than another 2
khris53196 5 months ago
all he did is install linux and then talk all this bullshit.
GOD!
Yayakills 6 months ago
My shitty ps3 ( and all ps3s) only play youtube videos in 240p...
Matthington10 6 months ago
Comment removed
billdsafdsad 5 months ago
the cell ce is an awesome cpu it's just too bad
they did not add more memory or the capability to add more memory
to the PlayStation 3 after all the US Air Force is using lots of PS3s
in an awesome configuration called the Condor cluster
It's just too bad all that hardware is locked
for the average consumer
but nevertheless the PlayStation3
a supercomputer without the memory
the more modern computers has
tucker21222 6 months ago in playlist PC CONFIGURATION
If the next consoles has 4 or 8 gb of ram
PCs are fucked
just think, xbox 360 and ps3 do an amazing job with only 512 ram.
imagine a console with 4 or 8 gb of ram
TheFred128 6 months ago
@TheFred128 pc created your beloved ps3 games so if pc is fucked your console is fucked fag
MICROSOFTGAMESTUDIO1 4 months ago
the Achilles heel of the ps3 and xbox 360 is the RAM
if the ps3 and xbox 360 have more RAM they would be even better
PS3 and Xbox 360 games run very well and very good graphics and only use 512 ram
What's pc with 512 ram that would run games and the xbox 360 and ps3 run? No
a pc with 512 ram sucks, and does not run good game.
PS3 and Xbox 360 are amazing
TheFred128 6 months ago
Link broken. What version of linux is this? "Yellow Dog Linux"?
TheTuxprogrammer 6 months ago