RISC architecture is what is used on GPUs stream processors, the CELL B.E has 8 RISC cores also known as "SPE" (Synergistic processing elements)... It's rendering is not bad for 8 cores, the Geforce9400GT for example has 16 CUDA cores which is more than 2 times more powerful than the CELL B.E when it comes to rendering. The Geforce9800GT has 112 CUDA cores and the GTX 580 has 512 CUDA cores...
the rendering here is almost identical to that of my gzdoom fps engine im working on that will run on ths ps3 cfw interface useing openGL 2.0 renderer. the models i use are .md3 models. static objects... and it almost looks completly identical
wow static objects, no moving particles lol even the fucking sega saturn could do this very simple rendering, if the cell really is that powerfull to render this why does it require a seperate GPU and even then hardly manage a 1080p native res (lol even GT5 wasnt true 1080p native "1920x1080"), dont even start with the ray traced lighting (only effective during photo mode) lol y6ou ps3 fans are so full of fail.
@gamerl0versFTW First of all, this is not simple rendering. It's ray tracing, much more demanding and complex than standard rasterization. Second, this is not being rendered by a PS3 console, it's being rendered by a cluster of IBM QS20 blades (which totals 14 Cell processors, 112 SPEs and 7 GB of RAM), an information that the uploader failed to add to the description of the video even though I already noted him that. A PS3 console would never be able to render a scene like this.
@YourW0rstEnemy: Software adoption remains a key issue in whether Cell ultimately delivers on its performance potential. This is still something that leaves most of us to wondering what a single cell is capable of. The PS3 hardware is the best among the consoles of current gen and its sad like games like Black Ops ran well optimized only on the 360...that is software adoption tapping the hardware potential. The rasterization in the clip can still be achieved thru proper software adoption.
@Manojvarughese The PS3 has been out for 6 years now. The current Gen consoles may have a few more years left in them but who knows. Me thinks the cell is a dud. I'm not saying that the PS3 isn't a super awesome gaming console in the least:) I'm just saying it's not some super computer the fanboys make it out to be. In many ways the 360 has proven to be more powerful in terms of raw graphical performance. By the time they "utilize" the cell it will be obsolete and no1 will care.
@lamiac2411 : 360 has had better gfx only in the earlier cross-platform games and not all...most of them remains identical but for developer's effort . The PS3 single core with 6 performing SPEs work in a different way from the 360's triple core, Power PC processor comparable to today''s core i5 entry level. That's why Sony's 1st party developers like Naughty Dog who familiarized its architecture with a SDK were able to bring Uncharted 3 to its glory,
@Manojvarughese A single Cell processor is capable of a peak of 230.4 GFLOPS. On the PS3, where only six SPEs are available for games, that value falls to 179.2 GFLOPS. If you compare that to the processing power of the stream processors on NVIDIA GPUs (AMD GPUs do not make a good comparison in this case), you have a pretty good idea of what it's capable of.
For instance, a GTX560 achieves up to 1088.64 GFLOPS, while a GTX570 achieves up to 1405.44 GFLOPS.
@NewLynxS First of all I totally admit that latest Nvidia GPUs remain top notch. The Cell-RSX architecture is different from the PC's. If we're to compare an obsolete 7800 GTX to latest Nvidia GPU's prowess, raw performance buries it. The point here is to highlight the Cell's performance to that of the latest core i7's instead of stream processors on GPUs.The PS3 does about 25gflops at double precision while the i7 920 does 80gflops. The above clip still remains a challenge.
@Manojvarughese Your point is not clear on that reply. Why exactly are you "highlighting" Cell's performance against one that is three times faster on floating-point performance? Also, the i7-920 is not the latest Core i7, in fact it's the first. A Core i7-2600, alongside the AVX instructions, pushes that difference even further.
Anyway, you missed mine. You said you wonder what a single Cell is capable of. A single Cell is capable of a maximum of 230.4 GFLOPS. That's it.
@NewLynxS: I know that its 230.4 GFlops. And again numbers are theoretical maximum and as SPEs work they are bound to reduce. So going by math and evaluating performance the cell is nowhere to the core i-7. Agreed. But in my previous comment to make it clear, I forgot to mention my referring to nature of clip above. Its rendering in real time is an achievable feat on a single cell with renderers(OpenGL 2.0). The Software adoption emphasized on the first comment should remind you of it.
@NewLynxS plus I would like to have the links to the source which says raytracing to this degree was only achieved through the clusters of QS20 blades....
@Manojvarughese When did I ever say it's only achieved by a cluster os QS20 blades? It can be achieved by any processor or network of processors with sufficient performance.
And again, what the video shows is a rendering done by seven IBM server blades, each with two Cell processors, not by a single Cell. A while ago I commented this (from another account) and the uploader himself confirmed it, even though he didn't correct the description for heaven knows whatever reason.
@NewLynxS : it was there in ur comment to gamerl0versFTW, I''m quoting it here for u ''First of all, this is not simple rendering. It's ray tracing, much more demanding and complex than standard rasterization. Second, this is not being rendered by a PS3 console, it's being rendered by a cluster of IBM QS20 blades (which totals 14 Cell processors, 112 SPEs and 7 GB of RAM)" so that's why I particularly asked for the links to the source...
@Manojvarughese Nowhere in that comment it says it can only be done by a server cluster. But it most certainly can't be done by a single Cell processor, let alone one where only six SPEs are usable.
And the source was this very same video on Vimeo, with all the proper information in the description. Sadly, it seems to have been deleted, as I can't find it anymore. The internal components of the IBM QS21 blades used on the cluster can be verified on IBM's website.
@Wakkajakka Your $15 MP3 player has 512 MB of flash storage, not 512 MB of RAM. That's a totally different thing, flash storage is non-volatile memory with MUCH lower bandwidth.
@doginthemafia A GeForce 210 will not be faster than the consoles. You need at least a GT220 or GT430 to achieve the same performance level, and at least a GT240 or GT440 to outperform them.
This is based on peak fillrates and memory bandwidth. I haven't looked at the 500 series equivalents yet.
@mystuff3040 Well COD: Black Ops is a very good example of badly optimized software, I mean the PC and PS3 versions had sub-par performance compared to MW2, whereas the Xbox 360 version of Black Ops had minimal issues, all about software adoptation, so yeah :)
I swear this could be done on any pc...It's just a simple render... Whether Xbox can do it or not, I won't know... But... for cell only, that's pretty impresive... Now let's see how it handles real time explosions etc..
@mudvayne852 THis is not simple rendering. It is using ray tracing, not standard rasterization.
Also, this is not being done by a Cell processor alone, this is being done by a cluster of IBM QS20 server blades, each of them with two Cell processors and 1 GB of RAM.
@henryhenriquez Cartridges are just mass storage. While systems of the past did have some games with co-processors in the cartridge, on a normal basis, the cartridge was/is still entirely reliant on the system it's attached to in order to have the data processed.
@mystuff3040, You're not on about general purpose processor's are you?
We had already moved on to Gpu's with programmable shaders a few years before 2005, and before then we had hardware vertex processing in 1999, with rasterization-only graphics chips before then!
Google "3dfx", the company that created the 3D acceleration hardware market you have today. Their first product was released in 1996.
Even in the late 80's we had hardware dedicated solely to graphics.
Even your piece of crap, integrated 2D video chipset in an OEM system in the 90's was dedicated video hardware. Rendering solely on a CPU hasn't been done in a long, long time.
@tazss159 This is being rendered by a cluster of IBM QS20 server blades, not by a PS3. The only task the PS3 has is to join all the pieces rendered by the cluster to make the final image (which even a smartphone would be able to do).
@jacktownsippiyazoo "Even though the PS3’s RSX is inaccessible under Linux the smart little system will reach out across the network and leverage multiple IBM QS20 blades to render the complex model, in real-time, with software based ray-tracing."
From a GameTomorrow article, explaining IBM iRT (Interactive Ray Tracing software).
@jacktownsippiyazoo I don't know what I'm talking about? Look at all the nonsense you've been saying here!
The PS3 uses a 3.2 GHz Cell processor with one core and seven SPEs (six available for games) and a NVIDIA RSX GPU (base don the G70 processor), which is the EXACT SAME as the GeForce 7800GTX 512 and 7950GT graphics cards, but with half the ROPs and memory controllers disabled. Those are and have always been the components inside the PS3, there are no "unfinished specs".
i just want you to give me finalized specs of ps3 thats all the only ones you have is from e3 2005, i applaud you trying your best to find all these specs, but it really serves no purpose as they arent final, and even if they were you cant tell me the specs when cell and rsx are working together at to performance
@jacktownsippiyazoo Those components I just listed are on the Playstation website and on the PS3 manual. They are also mentioned on iSuppli reports, as well as various other sources around the web. And frankly, you're the first idiot I have ever found to doubt the PS3 uses Cell and RSX, which at this point is as ridiculous as doubting 2 + 2 is 4.
yes on the playstation website from 2005 in which ps3 wasnt completed til august 2006 trust me nerd ps3s hardware was incomplete, yes they are mentioned just sony has never released ps3s final specs, 2 plus 2 is four, but cell combined with rsx isnt like traditional pc gpu combined with pc cpu like xbox 360 nerd fag
@jacktownsippiyazoo The Xbox 360 CPU uses the exact same microarchitecture as Cell (PowerPC G5). As for the GPU, it IS a traditional PC GPU, it's NVIDIA G70, the very same one used on the GeForce 7800 and 7900 series.
And if you don't believe the hardware inside the PS3 is known (which is just ridiculous), then google "isuppli sony breakeven point". On the first result, you'll see not only each of the components inside the PS3, but also their individual prices. The report is from December 2009.
@jacktownsippiyazoo what you still being a retard???? then tell me all knowing retard. what is the final specs of the ps3. since from sony website it states. cell 1 ppe, 6 spe, 256MB xdr ram, rsx(gtx7800 clone cought)
@jacktownsippiyazoo sony assembled it from premade parts from ibm, nvidia etc. and ibm, nvidia all have documentarion on it. and the rsx is a gtx7800 clone, ibm already stated the cell specs. nice try kid. but going in a circle will fail since is aclready a fact. stated by sony, ibm, nvidia.
do tell me then what you beliebe is in the ps... tard
Also, both IBM and NVIDIA have documentation about Cell and G70 (RSX) respectively. It CLEARLY states that a 3.2 GHz Cell processor achieves 25.6 GFLOPS per SPE plus 25.6 GFLOPS from the core's vector unit (making 179.2 GFLOPS on the PS3) and a G70 graphics processor clocked at 550 MHz with all the shaders enabled, as is the case with RSX, peaks at 400.4 GFLOPS.
Don't speak about things you don't have a clue about.
I have a feeling this was pre-rendered, but either way, it's far below what the RSX can do by itself. There is a reason why Sony skipped on the Cell x2 design originally thought out, and just went with an already available GPU (Nvidia G71 to be exact) to create the RSX. Two Cells in parallel would be interesting, but would not be able to compete vs the Xenos GPU in the 360, especially when you consider what amount of time/power you would even have left for non-rendering related tasks.
If anything, Cell based servers would be used to digitally encode the film for release on some kind of media. Actual rendering work for CGI would be best left to workstation type graphics that have the actual capability needed to quickly render complicated scenes a many times the Cell ever could hope to.
many times the cell could ever hope to? well then you must know better than sony does, and infact there are several cg developers that have worked on ps3 they would have to be wrong too think about that brains
Mistake on my part, Cell makes an excellent CGI CPU where precision, flexibility and quality are paramount. In realtime graphics, however, it's hardly competitive to an actual GPU that is made to pump out insane amounts of data in realtime, but the artifacts will be there to show that. A GPU could be given special drivers and software to lean more towards quality CGI, but the industry is grounded in using server farms with general purpose CPUs that have more flexibility.
@jacktownsippiyazoo Cell is nothing compared to a real modern GPUs made to push realtime graphics, especially considering it lacks texture units and render output processors.
@jacktownsippiyazoo The graphics processors "PC nerds" tout are the most powerful realtime oriented graphics processors that exist (AMD's Antilles and Nvidia's GF110). The RSX is based on an Nvidia PC GPU called G71 that was used in the Geforce 7800 line of graphics cards, which came out in 2005, over a year before the PS3 was released. Ironic that Sony would up relying on a year and a half old PC GPU in order to make up for the graphics capability that the Cell BE lacked.
So PS3 developers can create full games without even touching the RSX graphic chip wow. PS3 is the ultimate gaming system in the world. Developers go wild there's no limit to PS3's power.
@IvanPlayStation4LiFe but there are some developers that are lazy and code them without using the ps3 full capacity, thats why most of the games for PS3 lags, they dont really take advantage on the 7 SPEE cores of the ps3.
@IvanPlayStation4LiFe but there are some developers that are lazy and code them without using the ps3 full capacity, thats why most of the games for PS3 lags, they dont really take advantage on the 7 SPEE cores of the ps3.
@MegadrixfireZ NO you can't say that the developers are lazy. They only have so much time and money. Of course Naughty Dog and Bungie are both very rich which is why they can afford to invest in getting the best possible graphics out of their respective consoles.
In terms of Uncharted 2, no actual number was given, but a rough rounding would be around 100% they said. This is only because the GPU was barely touched according to Naughty Dog. Imagine what PS3 could do after this with both being used 100%! Poly power and other would be through the roof. Also, its said that each chara in Uncharted 2 is 80k each and they try to push 1.2M triangles in a frame almost all the time.
I say Uncharted 2 pushed the console about between 60-75% overall.
Soo.. can anyone tell me which is more powerful, Xenon+Xenos, or Cell+RSX? PS the set before the pluses, the winner is obviously Cell, but it's Xenos after the plus.
PS PS I'm almost sure it's PS3, 3 cores vs 8 =uber ultimate pwnage!
finally a guy that knows what he's talking about I dont post comments in this type of videos but omg is so refreshing to know that not every1 has shit in there heads :D thumbs up
yeah but a quad core would never be used at sony pictures studios but cell was rocket scientist have never used a quad core processor but cell has been used in rocket science not to mention supercomputers have been built from cell processors but not a quad core gtfo
@jacktownsippiyazoo you shure? ill tell you this now. the ps3 cell does 179gflops in single and 18gflops in double my gpu does 1200gflops in single and 300in double. so yea my gpu easily wins. and i have 6GB ram compared o the ps3 512MB and ALL my ram is faster. since ps3 bandqwith is a measly 25GB/s while mine is 30+GB/s
the ps3 GPU is a called rsx(aka gtx7800clone) and my gpu alone rapes the WHOLE ps3.... your wrong. to beat my pc you need 10 ps3...
just one question before you point out all these "exact" specs, can you give me the link to any finalized ps3 specs any after october 2005? and even if you did you ignorant pc nerd dont you understand that the rsx cell and blue ray work together and the specs are completely different than the base ps3 specs whatever they are, if ps3 worked like pc you might have been right but since ps3s architecture is completely new your as wrong as you are wrongly informed on ps3
@jacktownsippiyazoo the ps3 specs were finalised by may 2005 at e3 that year.. you fail fanboy...
ps3 has asingle core procesor running 2 threads, and 6 spe running on the same threads.
it has 256MB shared ram at 400MHz with a effective 25.6GB/s and a rsx with 24 parralel pixel shader and 8 parralel vertex shaders.and 256MB vram at 700MHz gddr3.. those are the specs. and they get owned by pc HARDCORE.
@jacktownsippiyazoo cells does 179gflops. rsx does 400.4gflops. both information came from developer aka nvidia and ibm. rsx was made by nvidia not sony. cell was made by IBM. not sony. read the documetation kid. your looking retarded.
nvidia already stated the rsx is just a gtx7800 with half the rop disabled and a die shrunk.. retard. look up nvidia documentation and ibm documentation lol... failboy is fail.. explain why no ps3 game is 1080p while my pc can easily do 1080p? huh? retard
also the rsx doesnt matter on ps3 its just extra power and the rsx is far more powerful than the geforce 7800 gtx since it boast 1.8 tflops of floating point precision
@jacktownsippiyazoo no the rsx does not do close to 1.8 terraflops it does 400.4gflops. not even the gtx580 does 1.8 terraflops and thats nvidia highest eng single gpu.. nice going ps3 fanboy proving you dont know how the ps3 works.
let me do the math. (25x27+8x10)x550=400.4 gflops do you know where i got these? from nidia. the one who MADE rsx. the rsx has 24 shaders doing 27 flops and 8 shaders doing 10 flops. times 550MHz clock speed. basic math kid.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
correction the cell broadband engine has 9 cores total 1 ppe which runs the os & most of the apps & 8 spes which 6 spes are reserved for games,the 7th spe is reserved for imagine compression and 8th spe as far as i can tell sits idol.
ps3 should jus use pc format games think about it super pc engine running everything..... come on sony ur pissing me off and i defend ur honor damn it
ps3 is not using near its capacity with games now. its just matching ps3 and giving it a run for its money but once the next microsoft system comes out, the ps3 will use much more of its power and make everyone see that microsoft's next gen will only stand up to sony's last gen.
Apparently no one can make more than two SPEs work at any one time due to how I/Os are handled, and overall memory bandwidth. When enabling a third, performance plummets due to the way memory is requested by the Power core and the other SPEs.
What this means is that with paralell rendering and the cell doing more basic wireframes and other, the geometry can increase through using both geometry engines from the vertex/geometry shaders and a hub of cell.
PS3 already has 1.1billion verts raw w perspective and cam. With peak texture and lights running on every poly, PS3 has 230million polys. 360 is 500, however, ps3 could equal it using quarter of the cell.
230 million is already over 4-8 million in EVERY FRAME AT 30-60fps too!
You know, it's hard to tell the "full potential" when you see it. However, I predict that the PS3 will continue to reach new heights beyond what the 360 will. It'll just take time.
wow look at you on multiple ps3 game videos with your negative rhetoric... interesting... i think you secretly want one ;) even if your "pc is 300 times more powerful" ;)
lol what the hell? There is a huge fucking difference, Number 1, The cell proccessor can run probably hundreds of programs at once. And the shitty xbox probably has no cpu comparible to the Cell. Number 2, Bly-Ray vs. DVD, you gotta be a fucking retard if you think the dvd is going to win. Number 3, Xbox breaks down all the fucking time. Where the PS3 never breaks down, unless you destroy it. You are completely wrong, and you know it.
bigphillip25 you're so wrong dvd maybe smaller but it reads faster, "shitty xbox" that just proves right there that you're a ps3 fanboy plus i've had a 360 since it launched and i've had very little trouble wheras my ps3 crashed all the time.
Sorry my bad, but bluray still does read faster. bluray at x4 speed is compairable to a DVD at x12 speed. I read somewhere that the speeds on DVD are non linear, meaning the drive has spin up faster speeds to read the outer tracks of the DVD with no additional read transfer rate.
Correct, the random dipshit at best buy described it to me as "3.2 ghz divided by 8", which is so far off it makes me mad to even think about it. He didnt realize that a 3.2 ghz processor dividing the workload into 6 different SPEs is a hell of a lot faster (and advanced) than a triple core xenon. Having him telling me off information was a waste of 20 minutes
The PS3 has 8 Cores, all at 3.2ghz. Thats fast as hell, image it running Windows (IF you add more RAM to the ps3, the PS3 is a gaming machine/home entertainment system not a computer)
But still, Cell processors are used in Super-Computers, their 128-BIT (Thats fucking amazing) and when running all 8 cores at full load temperature can get very heavy....
They can work on vectorized data using SIMD instructions (like most today's CPUs), and these vectors make up the 128 bits. But each number/computation is 32bits (be it an integer or a float).
FYI: the 2 PPE threads are software. Most of the time they can run in parallel, but some instruction will actually lock the whole PPE, stopping the other thread to work until the instruction is done.
Cell is not always "fast as hell". For some kind of work yes, for others no.
RISC architecture is what is used on GPUs stream processors, the CELL B.E has 8 RISC cores also known as "SPE" (Synergistic processing elements)... It's rendering is not bad for 8 cores, the Geforce9400GT for example has 16 CUDA cores which is more than 2 times more powerful than the CELL B.E when it comes to rendering. The Geforce9800GT has 112 CUDA cores and the GTX 580 has 512 CUDA cores...
arospades 1 week ago
gta 4 on pc looks way better
sabeel44 1 week ago
the rendering here is almost identical to that of my gzdoom fps engine im working on that will run on ths ps3 cfw interface useing openGL 2.0 renderer. the models i use are .md3 models. static objects... and it almost looks completly identical
SnakePlisskenPMW 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow static objects, no moving particles lol even the fucking sega saturn could do this very simple rendering, if the cell really is that powerfull to render this why does it require a seperate GPU and even then hardly manage a 1080p native res (lol even GT5 wasnt true 1080p native "1920x1080"), dont even start with the ray traced lighting (only effective during photo mode) lol y6ou ps3 fans are so full of fail.
gamerl0versFTW 1 month ago
@gamerl0versFTW wow, just wow.
Zeuspwns 1 month ago
@gamerl0versFTW First of all, this is not simple rendering. It's ray tracing, much more demanding and complex than standard rasterization. Second, this is not being rendered by a PS3 console, it's being rendered by a cluster of IBM QS20 blades (which totals 14 Cell processors, 112 SPEs and 7 GB of RAM), an information that the uploader failed to add to the description of the video even though I already noted him that. A PS3 console would never be able to render a scene like this.
NewLynxS 1 month ago
@gamerl0versFTW : go bk on to ur 3shitty....
Manojvarughese 1 month ago
@Manojvarughese
Hate to say it but he is right in certain respects
YourW0rstEnemy 3 weeks ago
@YourW0rstEnemy: Software adoption remains a key issue in whether Cell ultimately delivers on its performance potential. This is still something that leaves most of us to wondering what a single cell is capable of. The PS3 hardware is the best among the consoles of current gen and its sad like games like Black Ops ran well optimized only on the 360...that is software adoption tapping the hardware potential. The rasterization in the clip can still be achieved thru proper software adoption.
Manojvarughese 3 weeks ago
@Manojvarughese The PS3 has been out for 6 years now. The current Gen consoles may have a few more years left in them but who knows. Me thinks the cell is a dud. I'm not saying that the PS3 isn't a super awesome gaming console in the least:) I'm just saying it's not some super computer the fanboys make it out to be. In many ways the 360 has proven to be more powerful in terms of raw graphical performance. By the time they "utilize" the cell it will be obsolete and no1 will care.
lamiac2411 3 weeks ago in playlist ps3 rules xbox 360 suck forever
@lamiac2411 : 360 has had better gfx only in the earlier cross-platform games and not all...most of them remains identical but for developer's effort . The PS3 single core with 6 performing SPEs work in a different way from the 360's triple core, Power PC processor comparable to today''s core i5 entry level. That's why Sony's 1st party developers like Naughty Dog who familiarized its architecture with a SDK were able to bring Uncharted 3 to its glory,
Manojvarughese 3 weeks ago
@lamiac2411 And the hardware is more or less similar in delivering performance. More likely PS3 edged out with the nature of Cell BE architecture.
Manojvarughese 3 weeks ago
@Manojvarughese A single Cell processor is capable of a peak of 230.4 GFLOPS. On the PS3, where only six SPEs are available for games, that value falls to 179.2 GFLOPS. If you compare that to the processing power of the stream processors on NVIDIA GPUs (AMD GPUs do not make a good comparison in this case), you have a pretty good idea of what it's capable of.
For instance, a GTX560 achieves up to 1088.64 GFLOPS, while a GTX570 achieves up to 1405.44 GFLOPS.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
@NewLynxS First of all I totally admit that latest Nvidia GPUs remain top notch. The Cell-RSX architecture is different from the PC's. If we're to compare an obsolete 7800 GTX to latest Nvidia GPU's prowess, raw performance buries it. The point here is to highlight the Cell's performance to that of the latest core i7's instead of stream processors on GPUs.The PS3 does about 25gflops at double precision while the i7 920 does 80gflops. The above clip still remains a challenge.
Manojvarughese 3 weeks ago
@Manojvarughese Your point is not clear on that reply. Why exactly are you "highlighting" Cell's performance against one that is three times faster on floating-point performance? Also, the i7-920 is not the latest Core i7, in fact it's the first. A Core i7-2600, alongside the AVX instructions, pushes that difference even further.
Anyway, you missed mine. You said you wonder what a single Cell is capable of. A single Cell is capable of a maximum of 230.4 GFLOPS. That's it.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
@NewLynxS: I know that its 230.4 GFlops. And again numbers are theoretical maximum and as SPEs work they are bound to reduce. So going by math and evaluating performance the cell is nowhere to the core i-7. Agreed. But in my previous comment to make it clear, I forgot to mention my referring to nature of clip above. Its rendering in real time is an achievable feat on a single cell with renderers(OpenGL 2.0). The Software adoption emphasized on the first comment should remind you of it.
Manojvarughese 3 weeks ago 10
@NewLynxS plus I would like to have the links to the source which says raytracing to this degree was only achieved through the clusters of QS20 blades....
Manojvarughese 3 weeks ago
@Manojvarughese When did I ever say it's only achieved by a cluster os QS20 blades? It can be achieved by any processor or network of processors with sufficient performance.
And again, what the video shows is a rendering done by seven IBM server blades, each with two Cell processors, not by a single Cell. A while ago I commented this (from another account) and the uploader himself confirmed it, even though he didn't correct the description for heaven knows whatever reason.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
@NewLynxS : it was there in ur comment to gamerl0versFTW, I''m quoting it here for u ''First of all, this is not simple rendering. It's ray tracing, much more demanding and complex than standard rasterization. Second, this is not being rendered by a PS3 console, it's being rendered by a cluster of IBM QS20 blades (which totals 14 Cell processors, 112 SPEs and 7 GB of RAM)" so that's why I particularly asked for the links to the source...
Manojvarughese 3 weeks ago
@Manojvarughese Nowhere in that comment it says it can only be done by a server cluster. But it most certainly can't be done by a single Cell processor, let alone one where only six SPEs are usable.
And the source was this very same video on Vimeo, with all the proper information in the description. Sadly, it seems to have been deleted, as I can't find it anymore. The internal components of the IBM QS21 blades used on the cluster can be verified on IBM's website.
NewLynxS 3 weeks ago
Too bad the PS3 has less than half the ram of my 15 dollar mp3 player.
Wakkajakka 2 months ago
@Wakkajakka Consoles dont like a computer they dont need ram.
steamingpoopfart 2 months ago
@Wakkajakka Your $15 MP3 player has 512 MB of flash storage, not 512 MB of RAM. That's a totally different thing, flash storage is non-volatile memory with MUCH lower bandwidth.
NewLynxS 2 months ago 3
@NewLynxS I can buy a 512MB vram gtx210 for 40$, its more powerful than the shitty gpu the ps3 has. the ps3 is useless and all its games are movies
doginthemafia 1 week ago
@doginthemafia A GeForce 210 will not be faster than the consoles. You need at least a GT220 or GT430 to achieve the same performance level, and at least a GT240 or GT440 to outperform them.
This is based on peak fillrates and memory bandwidth. I haven't looked at the 500 series equivalents yet.
NewLynxS 1 week ago
@Wakkajakka This comment is so wrong on so many levels.
SWOgottaGO 2 months ago
Comment removed
X3BOOODYX2012 4 months ago
What so special about this? You people do realize just about any cpu can also do this with out a gpu right?
XxxacoldsoulXxx 5 months ago
@XxxacoldsoulXxx yes but in 3dmark vantage it cant create shadows and real time rendering
iamgig9876 4 months ago
@XxxacoldsoulXxx err...i really dont think so ? can you kindly provied some links or ?
sikeyimboyleisi 3 months ago
dude this is awesome
billdsafdsad 6 months ago
Consoles shouldnt be compared to PC's or other consoles through hardware,
Consoles are never designed to have top-end specifications, as it would cost too much to manufacturer and wouldnt generate a profit,
thats why the Cell was downclocked to 3.2ghz from 4.0ghz and stripped of one SPE, Its also why the RSX is a reduced G70 with a 128-bit memory bus,
You dont need computational power, you need optimized software and thats something that is fairly rare in PC games nowadays,
Yamanote98 6 months ago
@Yamanote98 In the last part of your comment you were talking about Blackops right?
mystuff3040 5 months ago
@mystuff3040 Well COD: Black Ops is a very good example of badly optimized software, I mean the PC and PS3 versions had sub-par performance compared to MW2, whereas the Xbox 360 version of Black Ops had minimal issues, all about software adoptation, so yeah :)
Yamanote98 5 months ago
@Yamanote98 thats because Microsoft threatened activition to let it be so that there console doesn't look like an shitbox
00WhatIf00 5 months ago
@00WhatIf00 Do you have a source to confirm that or was that just a gross, ignorant guess?
NewLynxS 5 months ago
@NewLynxS it kinda was that 2nd thing XD
00WhatIf00 4 months ago
I swear this could be done on any pc...It's just a simple render... Whether Xbox can do it or not, I won't know... But... for cell only, that's pretty impresive... Now let's see how it handles real time explosions etc..
mudvayne852 6 months ago
@mudvayne852 THis is not simple rendering. It is using ray tracing, not standard rasterization.
Also, this is not being done by a Cell processor alone, this is being done by a cluster of IBM QS20 server blades, each of them with two Cell processors and 1 GB of RAM.
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@NewLynxS
Step 1: Get a real PC
Step 2: Run a benchmark such as 3dmark vantage (Cpu bench) and see the real power of the i7 unleashed.
Step 3: Compare to the cell, which by then, you would think is made of wood and dirt.
TheXordinary 6 months ago
@TheXordinary A Core i7 processor is faster than Cell, but it's not faster than 14 of them in a QS21 cluster.
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@TheXordinary is i3 good
MrDopevids 6 months ago
@TheXordinary stfu pc fanboy, get back in ur basement.
TheDM75 5 months ago
This is like the regular xbox graphics maybe slightly better who knows
SonyDroid 6 months ago
this is bullshit. now try moving the camera a bit faster and putting some people/cars and real-time action in there and watch this animation crawl.
harper16 7 months ago
@harper16
i can tell your a pc nerd, this is only an early working though
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo i'm an xbox fan actually.
harper16 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Point is the spu's can do rendering them selves, all that was done without even using the RSX which is the graphics chip.
Thall7308 9 months ago
Comment removed
Thall7308 9 months ago
LOL! And people say the Cell can't do graphics processing.
tazss159 11 months ago 15
@tazss159 any cpu can render something that stands still and is not dynamic or interactive
henryhenriquez 11 months ago
@henryhenriquez
any cpu? lol
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo ANY cpu. how do you think. those olg games back in 1990 rendered...
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@henryhenriquez
with a cartridge
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo cartriges rendr with cpu. they have no gpu. the game itself works inside the cartrige
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@henryhenriquez Cartridges are just mass storage. While systems of the past did have some games with co-processors in the cartridge, on a normal basis, the cartridge was/is still entirely reliant on the system it's attached to in order to have the data processed.
mobius1aic 6 months ago
@tazss159 Before 2005 most pc's used processors to render graphics.
And this shouldn't even be considered a test, since its just a low resolution mesh with textures on it
mystuff3040 10 months ago
@mystuff3040 We've had graphics processors since the mid 90's..
NerdInHisShoe 9 months ago
@mystuff3040, You're not on about general purpose processor's are you?
We had already moved on to Gpu's with programmable shaders a few years before 2005, and before then we had hardware vertex processing in 1999, with rasterization-only graphics chips before then!
dogdirt2000 9 months ago
@mystuff3040
Wow, is your history misinformed.
Google "3dfx", the company that created the 3D acceleration hardware market you have today. Their first product was released in 1996.
Even in the late 80's we had hardware dedicated solely to graphics.
Even your piece of crap, integrated 2D video chipset in an OEM system in the 90's was dedicated video hardware. Rendering solely on a CPU hasn't been done in a long, long time.
Draknfyre 7 months ago
@tazss159 This is being rendered by a cluster of IBM QS20 server blades, not by a PS3. The only task the PS3 has is to join all the pieces rendered by the cluster to make the final image (which even a smartphone would be able to do).
NewLynxS 8 months ago
@NewLynxS
any proof
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo "Even though the PS3’s RSX is inaccessible under Linux the smart little system will reach out across the network and leverage multiple IBM QS20 blades to render the complex model, in real-time, with software based ray-tracing."
From a GameTomorrow article, explaining IBM iRT (Interactive Ray Tracing software).
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@NewLynxS
thats not talking about this video
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo What software do you think this is, dummy?
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@NewLynxS
your the dummy since you dont know what your talking about
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo I don't know what I'm talking about? Look at all the nonsense you've been saying here!
The PS3 uses a 3.2 GHz Cell processor with one core and seven SPEs (six available for games) and a NVIDIA RSX GPU (base don the G70 processor), which is the EXACT SAME as the GeForce 7800GTX 512 and 7950GT graphics cards, but with half the ROPs and memory controllers disabled. Those are and have always been the components inside the PS3, there are no "unfinished specs".
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@NewLynxS
i just want you to give me finalized specs of ps3 thats all the only ones you have is from e3 2005, i applaud you trying your best to find all these specs, but it really serves no purpose as they arent final, and even if they were you cant tell me the specs when cell and rsx are working together at to performance
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo Those components I just listed are on the Playstation website and on the PS3 manual. They are also mentioned on iSuppli reports, as well as various other sources around the web. And frankly, you're the first idiot I have ever found to doubt the PS3 uses Cell and RSX, which at this point is as ridiculous as doubting 2 + 2 is 4.
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@NewLynxS
yes on the playstation website from 2005 in which ps3 wasnt completed til august 2006 trust me nerd ps3s hardware was incomplete, yes they are mentioned just sony has never released ps3s final specs, 2 plus 2 is four, but cell combined with rsx isnt like traditional pc gpu combined with pc cpu like xbox 360 nerd fag
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo The Xbox 360 CPU uses the exact same microarchitecture as Cell (PowerPC G5). As for the GPU, it IS a traditional PC GPU, it's NVIDIA G70, the very same one used on the GeForce 7800 and 7900 series.
And if you don't believe the hardware inside the PS3 is known (which is just ridiculous), then google "isuppli sony breakeven point". On the first result, you'll see not only each of the components inside the PS3, but also their individual prices. The report is from December 2009.
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@NewLynxS
even that isnt exactly sony but hey im done with this
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo Of course you're done with this. You're out of senseless excuses.
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@NewLynxS
not excuses just the unfortunate truth that pc fans dont want revealed
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo what you still being a retard???? then tell me all knowing retard. what is the final specs of the ps3. since from sony website it states. cell 1 ppe, 6 spe, 256MB xdr ram, rsx(gtx7800 clone cought)
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@henryhenriquez
sonys' site? like they really made it
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo sony assembled it from premade parts from ibm, nvidia etc. and ibm, nvidia all have documentarion on it. and the rsx is a gtx7800 clone, ibm already stated the cell specs. nice try kid. but going in a circle will fail since is aclready a fact. stated by sony, ibm, nvidia.
do tell me then what you beliebe is in the ps... tard
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo Continued...
Also, both IBM and NVIDIA have documentation about Cell and G70 (RSX) respectively. It CLEARLY states that a 3.2 GHz Cell processor achieves 25.6 GFLOPS per SPE plus 25.6 GFLOPS from the core's vector unit (making 179.2 GFLOPS on the PS3) and a G70 graphics processor clocked at 550 MHz with all the shaders enabled, as is the case with RSX, peaks at 400.4 GFLOPS.
Don't speak about things you don't have a clue about.
NewLynxS 6 months ago
@tazss159 the ps3 was actually going to have cell processor itself, no graphics card, because the cell processor can do HD graphics processing
al7capone 2 months ago
if u plat gt5, the rendering is just like and even better. gt5 hasamazing rendering
Mrmofongo624 1 year ago
I have a feeling this was pre-rendered, but either way, it's far below what the RSX can do by itself. There is a reason why Sony skipped on the Cell x2 design originally thought out, and just went with an already available GPU (Nvidia G71 to be exact) to create the RSX. Two Cells in parallel would be interesting, but would not be able to compete vs the Xenos GPU in the 360, especially when you consider what amount of time/power you would even have left for non-rendering related tasks.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
@mobius1aic
one cell can blow 360 away since sony used the cell processor in sony pictures studios on their films
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo
If anything, Cell based servers would be used to digitally encode the film for release on some kind of media. Actual rendering work for CGI would be best left to workstation type graphics that have the actual capability needed to quickly render complicated scenes a many times the Cell ever could hope to.
mobius1aic 6 months ago
@mobius1aic
many times the cell could ever hope to? well then you must know better than sony does, and infact there are several cg developers that have worked on ps3 they would have to be wrong too think about that brains
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo
Mistake on my part, Cell makes an excellent CGI CPU where precision, flexibility and quality are paramount. In realtime graphics, however, it's hardly competitive to an actual GPU that is made to pump out insane amounts of data in realtime, but the artifacts will be there to show that. A GPU could be given special drivers and software to lean more towards quality CGI, but the industry is grounded in using server farms with general purpose CPUs that have more flexibility.
mobius1aic 6 months ago
@mobius1aic
ok brains you know more than developers and sony so okay
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo Cell is nothing compared to a real modern GPUs made to push realtime graphics, especially considering it lacks texture units and render output processors.
mobius1aic 6 months ago
@mobius1aic
maybe modern amd renderfarm chips, but not the chips pc nerds tout all the time
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
Comment removed
mobius1aic 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jacktownsippiyazoo The graphics processors "PC nerds" tout are the most powerful realtime oriented graphics processors that exist (AMD's Antilles and Nvidia's GF110). The RSX is based on an Nvidia PC GPU called G71 that was used in the Geforce 7800 line of graphics cards, which came out in 2005, over a year before the PS3 was released. Ironic that Sony would up relying on a year and a half old PC GPU in order to make up for the graphics capability that the Cell BE lacked.
mobius1aic 6 months ago
Wow, look at the reflecting in the Windows, this is also processed by the Cell?
leck0rkuchen 1 year ago 2
@leck0rkuchen
not suprising
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
So PS3 developers can create full games without even touching the RSX graphic chip wow. PS3 is the ultimate gaming system in the world. Developers go wild there's no limit to PS3's power.
IvanPlayStation4LiFe 1 year ago
Comment removed
mathhenr 1 year ago
@mathhenr as i got it a few months before uploading i lost the information on it and you are correct.
Zeuspwns 1 year ago
@IvanPlayStation4LiFe but there are some developers that are lazy and code them without using the ps3 full capacity, thats why most of the games for PS3 lags, they dont really take advantage on the 7 SPEE cores of the ps3.
MegadrixfireZ 1 year ago
@IvanPlayStation4LiFe but there are some developers that are lazy and code them without using the ps3 full capacity, thats why most of the games for PS3 lags, they dont really take advantage on the 7 SPEE cores of the ps3.
MegadrixfireZ 1 year ago
@MegadrixfireZ NO you can't say that the developers are lazy. They only have so much time and money. Of course Naughty Dog and Bungie are both very rich which is why they can afford to invest in getting the best possible graphics out of their respective consoles.
e102ewan 1 year ago
@e102ewan i ment "lazy" was a way of saying they didnt had much money and needed to finish fast and the result was in laggy ports.
I know lazy was like they didnt care about nothing, but i expressed wrong, sorry.
MegadrixfireZ 1 year ago
40nm RSX GPU
X3six0 1 year ago
If the code is written for the cell it will destroy desktops. Like Folding@Home, the cell and teh Spus love to number crunch.
Thall7308 1 year ago
In terms of Uncharted 2, no actual number was given, but a rough rounding would be around 100% they said. This is only because the GPU was barely touched according to Naughty Dog. Imagine what PS3 could do after this with both being used 100%! Poly power and other would be through the roof. Also, its said that each chara in Uncharted 2 is 80k each and they try to push 1.2M triangles in a frame almost all the time.
I say Uncharted 2 pushed the console about between 60-75% overall.
silenceofthehills 1 year ago
What do you mean the GPU was barely touched? I'm sure they had the RSX working like crazy the entire time.
Usul573 1 year ago
@Usul573 no they didnt you fucktard cant you see the title. why the fck would they lie? please dont be childish nor 360 fanboy.
MegadrixfireZ 1 year ago
@MegadrixfireZ
I was responding to someone saying in Uncharted 2 that the RSX was barely touched in the game.
Usul573 1 year ago
@Usul573 okey sorry :).
MegadrixfireZ 1 year ago
Crytek's CryEngine 3 pushes 2.25M triangles on both the PS3 and the 360. Sony said that Crytek used techniques that they had never even seen before.
esnedon 1 year ago
@esnedon
really
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@silenceofthehills yep imagine a game that uses 100% of the ps3's power including all the spes and including the rsx.
oblivion183hv 1 year ago
You can always tell Dev who rely on the RSX and the ones who know how to use both.
Rjackman84 1 year ago
PS3 FTW!! Blu-Ray Cell RSX
rukaras 2 years ago 14
Soo.. can anyone tell me which is more powerful, Xenon+Xenos, or Cell+RSX? PS the set before the pluses, the winner is obviously Cell, but it's Xenos after the plus.
PS PS I'm almost sure it's PS3, 3 cores vs 8 =uber ultimate pwnage!
VGF5364 2 years ago
Go to the youtube account
jon4lakers
he has videos dedicated on ps3 vs xbox (the title is Console wars).
2 of them are cpu vs gpu.
it tells A LOT of information.
but for your question, its not 8 cores but SPEs.
essboarder23 2 years ago 2
It's not 3 cores vs 8: it's 3 bi-cores vs 1 bi-cores + 5 SPU cores, or 6 cores vs 7.
Tfpsly 2 years ago 2
depends, Cell is fantastic for floating point calculations while the Xenon would be better for integer based calculations
Javadamutt 2 years ago 3
finally a guy that knows what he's talking about I dont post comments in this type of videos but omg is so refreshing to know that not every1 has shit in there heads :D thumbs up
HellMuTx 1 year ago
PS3 IS THE BEST.PS3 IS AMAZING
stelispav 2 years ago 3
Why do people not understand SPE's are NOT cores. The Cell can not compete what-so-ever with a Quad-Core running at the same speed.
Guy01001 1 year ago 3
@Guy01001
yeah but a quad core would never be used at sony pictures studios but cell was rocket scientist have never used a quad core processor but cell has been used in rocket science not to mention supercomputers have been built from cell processors but not a quad core gtfo
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo sadly xeons are not quadcores bu 6 -8 cores.. and they beat cell eeasily and they are family of i7 quad cores.. so fail more.
my pc has more then 10 times more power then a ps3.. in flops ram, cache, integrer etc....
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@henryhenriquez
yeah im sure and i now know my theory is right that 99% of the internet knows nothing about ps3
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo you shure? ill tell you this now. the ps3 cell does 179gflops in single and 18gflops in double my gpu does 1200gflops in single and 300in double. so yea my gpu easily wins. and i have 6GB ram compared o the ps3 512MB and ALL my ram is faster. since ps3 bandqwith is a measly 25GB/s while mine is 30+GB/s
the ps3 GPU is a called rsx(aka gtx7800clone) and my gpu alone rapes the WHOLE ps3.... your wrong. to beat my pc you need 10 ps3...
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@henryhenriquez
just one question before you point out all these "exact" specs, can you give me the link to any finalized ps3 specs any after october 2005? and even if you did you ignorant pc nerd dont you understand that the rsx cell and blue ray work together and the specs are completely different than the base ps3 specs whatever they are, if ps3 worked like pc you might have been right but since ps3s architecture is completely new your as wrong as you are wrongly informed on ps3
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo the ps3 specs were finalised by may 2005 at e3 that year.. you fail fanboy...
ps3 has asingle core procesor running 2 threads, and 6 spe running on the same threads.
it has 256MB shared ram at 400MHz with a effective 25.6GB/s and a rsx with 24 parralel pixel shader and 8 parralel vertex shaders.and 256MB vram at 700MHz gddr3.. those are the specs. and they get owned by pc HARDCORE.
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@henryhenriquez
no those were prototype unfinished ps3 specs, there were no finalized ps3 specs get owned, get owned by ps3 hardcore pcs garbage
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo cells does 179gflops. rsx does 400.4gflops. both information came from developer aka nvidia and ibm. rsx was made by nvidia not sony. cell was made by IBM. not sony. read the documetation kid. your looking retarded.
nvidia already stated the rsx is just a gtx7800 with half the rop disabled and a die shrunk.. retard. look up nvidia documentation and ibm documentation lol... failboy is fail.. explain why no ps3 game is 1080p while my pc can easily do 1080p? huh? retard
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
also the rsx doesnt matter on ps3 its just extra power and the rsx is far more powerful than the geforce 7800 gtx since it boast 1.8 tflops of floating point precision
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo no the rsx does not do close to 1.8 terraflops it does 400.4gflops. not even the gtx580 does 1.8 terraflops and thats nvidia highest eng single gpu.. nice going ps3 fanboy proving you dont know how the ps3 works.
let me do the math. (25x27+8x10)x550=400.4 gflops do you know where i got these? from nidia. the one who MADE rsx. the rsx has 24 shaders doing 27 flops and 8 shaders doing 10 flops. times 550MHz clock speed. basic math kid.
henryhenriquez 6 months ago
@henryhenriquez
your right its higher than 1.8tflops combined with cell
jacktownsippiyazoo 6 months ago
@jacktownsippiyazoo Are you really that incredibly biased and idiotic? Do some actual research before you come here spouting bullshit.
Oh, and OF COURSE Sony is going to use their own "wonderful" CPU. It's bad PR not to.
Listen to Henry here. The Cell is already quite irrelevant. So go ahead and GTFO, you illiterate and infantile little man.
Guy01001 6 months ago
they should have games programed to work whit ps3 clusters so you could have 3 ps3 and some out of this world graphics... and ps3 will rule the earth
JmsDrkx 2 years ago
Uncharted 2 uses 5 SPE's:)
DonKing86 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
correction the cell broadband engine has 9 cores total 1 ppe which runs the os & most of the apps & 8 spes which 6 spes are reserved for games,the 7th spe is reserved for imagine compression and 8th spe as far as i can tell sits idol.
hardkoregamer1981 2 years ago
wrong.
flanker22 2 years ago
Sony should do something like this for Home.
Make Home open world Sony!
feathersk 2 years ago
ps3 should jus use pc format games think about it super pc engine running everything..... come on sony ur pissing me off and i defend ur honor damn it
Wilsonboy0528 2 years ago
wtf is PC format?
You mean Windows games, for an x86 architecture?
That doesn't even make sense.
cyborgtroy 2 years ago
ps3 is not using near its capacity with games now. its just matching ps3 and giving it a run for its money but once the next microsoft system comes out, the ps3 will use much more of its power and make everyone see that microsoft's next gen will only stand up to sony's last gen.
lorddresefer 2 years ago
I want a zombie game in that map! With those awesome graphics!
MilkThatEmo 2 years ago
so , this video demostrates the cell cpu can do what a cheap core 2 duo can ? MOVE around a basic 3d image, snooooooreee
girlsdrinkfeck 2 years ago
PS3, good machine, but wonder how much RAM memory do PS3 have?
peterinfamilyguy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ps3 is past its time and that technology should have been saved for a later model sony screwed up xbox isnt as powerful but a hella more fun
Alster12345678 2 years ago
Apparently no one can make more than two SPEs work at any one time due to how I/Os are handled, and overall memory bandwidth. When enabling a third, performance plummets due to the way memory is requested by the Power core and the other SPEs.
Zeuspwns 2 years ago
I'm sure this kink will be worked out as Sony reveals more and more development tricks. LOL
Moothyknight4534 2 years ago 22
You can use its full potential, but it is more trouble than it's worth because of memory latency as you suggest.
LordFabs 2 years ago 4
Seems 6 SPE's are being used almost at 100% in Uncharted 2 but i wonder much much of it needs to have little latency
Zeuspwns 2 years ago
the cell was used to only 73% of its full potential.
Permafry42 2 years ago
worng. ND say that they used 100 % from the Cell,BUT ONLY WITH THE ENGINE GRAHFIC THAT USED I UNCHARTED 2
DfiLyLV 2 years ago
I'm just wondering, how do you know how much the SPE's are being used?
smoogipoo 2 years ago
Comment removed
rickcrouch 2 years ago
What this means is that with paralell rendering and the cell doing more basic wireframes and other, the geometry can increase through using both geometry engines from the vertex/geometry shaders and a hub of cell.
PS3 already has 1.1billion verts raw w perspective and cam. With peak texture and lights running on every poly, PS3 has 230million polys. 360 is 500, however, ps3 could equal it using quarter of the cell.
230 million is already over 4-8 million in EVERY FRAME AT 30-60fps too!
silenceofthehills 2 years ago
When I see a PS3 pumping out games that utilize its full potential, I will get one. Untill then I will make do with a 360.
toggsuk 2 years ago
You know, it's hard to tell the "full potential" when you see it. However, I predict that the PS3 will continue to reach new heights beyond what the 360 will. It'll just take time.
alwaysobsessed 2 years ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its took them 3 years so far ? HMMM < think the time has been and gone mate
girlsdrinkfeck 2 years ago
@alwaysobsessed Before the new generation of consoles?... it's been some years now since this generation xD
adriumroot 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
indeed , a ps3 is same as a xbox but it costs a lot more , not really worth it
girlsdrinkfeck 2 years ago
hell no same ahs xbox
animecool999 2 years ago
Yes it does, unless you got Golden membership on 360, count that up as well, cause I don't remember paying any membership to play online on the PS3.
Razgrits 2 years ago
no ps3 is better then 360 in every way
itachifan275 2 years ago
um, no. when it comes to a processor, the ps3 def has the advantage.
PSNCJJA 2 years ago
wow look at you on multiple ps3 game videos with your negative rhetoric... interesting... i think you secretly want one ;) even if your "pc is 300 times more powerful" ;)
mozaks80 2 years ago
lol what the hell? There is a huge fucking difference, Number 1, The cell proccessor can run probably hundreds of programs at once. And the shitty xbox probably has no cpu comparible to the Cell. Number 2, Bly-Ray vs. DVD, you gotta be a fucking retard if you think the dvd is going to win. Number 3, Xbox breaks down all the fucking time. Where the PS3 never breaks down, unless you destroy it. You are completely wrong, and you know it.
bigphillip25 2 years ago
bigphillip25 you're so wrong dvd maybe smaller but it reads faster, "shitty xbox" that just proves right there that you're a ps3 fanboy plus i've had a 360 since it launched and i've had very little trouble wheras my ps3 crashed all the time.
andrewjones1977 2 years ago
thats just bad luck and good luck on your part, the main killer of both consoles i found was dust so i have filters on everything with a intake
Zeuspwns 2 years ago
neither have dust on them and my ps3 still craps out, no you can't blame dust this time.
andrewjones1977 2 years ago
you didn't read what i said what i've found it that dust for me is the main killer not for everyone else.
Zeuspwns 2 years ago
DVD doesn't read faster. blu-ray reads twice as fast as Hd-DVD, and you know its only a x2 speed drive, were DVD is x52.
rickcrouch 2 years ago
incorrect CD drives and disks go to 52x not DVD some DVD drives can read at 22x or 24x the average is 16x
Zeuspwns 2 years ago
Sorry my bad, but bluray still does read faster. bluray at x4 speed is compairable to a DVD at x12 speed. I read somewhere that the speeds on DVD are non linear, meaning the drive has spin up faster speeds to read the outer tracks of the DVD with no additional read transfer rate.
correct me if im wrong...
rickcrouch 2 years ago
lol just goes to show what you know then.
andrewjones1977 2 years ago
Correct, the random dipshit at best buy described it to me as "3.2 ghz divided by 8", which is so far off it makes me mad to even think about it. He didnt realize that a 3.2 ghz processor dividing the workload into 6 different SPEs is a hell of a lot faster (and advanced) than a triple core xenon. Having him telling me off information was a waste of 20 minutes
oerllikon2 2 years ago
LOL haha!
The PS3 has 8 Cores, all at 3.2ghz. Thats fast as hell, image it running Windows (IF you add more RAM to the ps3, the PS3 is a gaming machine/home entertainment system not a computer)
But still, Cell processors are used in Super-Computers, their 128-BIT (Thats fucking amazing) and when running all 8 cores at full load temperature can get very heavy....
God of war 3 might do this!
gamepro127onPSN 2 years ago
They aren't 128 bits.
They can work on vectorized data using SIMD instructions (like most today's CPUs), and these vectors make up the 128 bits. But each number/computation is 32bits (be it an integer or a float).
FYI: the 2 PPE threads are software. Most of the time they can run in parallel, but some instruction will actually lock the whole PPE, stopping the other thread to work until the instruction is done.
Cell is not always "fast as hell". For some kind of work yes, for others no.
Tfpsly 2 years ago
its not the same,its way more powerful than an Xbox360 and studies show that its even more powerful than super computers.
wilk12848 2 years ago