Procesador Cell - PS3

Procesador Cell - PS3

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• PS3

[NewLynxS]

@iqon97 Despite being finished in 2005, Cell was only released in 2006 on the PS3 and some IBM server solutions. By that time, it was already much behind Intel's Core 2 (Conroe and Kentsfield) and AMD's Athlon 64 X2 (Brisbane) lineups. In 2007, with Kentsfield becoming mainstream and AMD releasing their quad-core Agena chip, the difference was pushed even further.

[iqon97]

@NewLynxS also to proove that the ps3's processor was better than the xbox 360's

/watch?v=zmHY_VnuDdE

copy and paste that in front of youtube.com.

[iqon97]

@NewLynxS those core processors came out 2006, cell was made in 2004-5 so my point that for it's time it was the best, better than celerons and pentiums. But I get your point. That's how pc's are now adays consoles come out and pc's beat them in a week or something. lol? am I right?

EITHER WAY, ps3's processor is better than xbox 360's processor

show you why /watch?v=zmHY_VnuDdE copy and paste that in front of youtube.com

[iqon97]

@NewLynxS right right but for it's time 2004 it was probably unmatched.

Celerons and pentiums couldn't come close.

EITHER WAY it's better than xbox 360's CPU, which couldn't process graphics.

[NewLynxS]

@iqon97 Continued...

On top of that, any CPU, not just Cell, can process graphics. Back then, Cell had an edge on this aspect because such vertex and post-processing tasks rely exactly on single-precision FLOPS, Cell's only good trait. But today, chips like Sandy Bridge and Thuban can do everything Cell does and more.

It's not like they have to, though, because unlike PS3's RSX, PC GPUs have all the shader processing power they need, not requiring CPU aiding and complicated software development.

[NewLynxS]

@iqon97 No, it was not. When the PS3 came out, Cell was nothing compared to quad-core Kentsfield processors. It couldn't even compete with the dual-core Conroe and Brisbane chips. Cell was faster than desktop CPUs on single-precision floating point calculations ONLY (due to the additional SIMD units), which by no means makes it a better processor. It still had much lower double-precision, integer and boolean perfoamance, much less cache and a much more limited, RISC-only instruction set.

[iqon97]

@NewLynxS yeah but when the cell came out it was 22 times better than anything intel had, let alone amd.

What did they use then? celerons and pentiums. core 2 duo or quad?

pfft.

anyway the ps3's processor processes graphics aswell and thats why games like uncharted 2 and 3 and killzone 2 and 3 are possible on ps3. Along with starhawk.

[CrazyLoveRnB]

Esto es lo que vende una videoconsola, esta es la propaganda que siempre sabe hacer sony y ahora decidme, ¿por que ese procesador no muestra nada que no este mostrando ya xbox 360?...

En dos palabras, publicidad engañosa y a la hora de la verdad la consola en conjunto (porque no solo vive de procesador) pues no rinde, pero sea como sea no se les puede denunciar, es un procesador potente y hoy por hoy muchos siguen comprando la consola que creen con mas potencia del mercado. Asi funciona.

[NewLynxS]

@jhonesgc Cell has one core and seven SIMD units, not seven cores. It is a 2005 PowerPC-based processor with 512 KB of cache. It's indeed no match for modern Intel and AMD offerings, which have more cores, more cache, new instruction sets and newer, much more efficient microarchitectures.

Also, PowerXCell 8i is nothing but a Cell processor optimized for double-precision operations. It's NOWHERE near being the most powerful processor available.

(Sorry, I can read Spanish, but I can't write it.)

[XSphynxForEvilX]

@jhonesgc olvidé que había comentado aquí, mi comentario anterior no es una simple opinión personal, no soy experto en el tema, pero esto ya lo han discutido varias veces en varios foros de internet (y no necesariamente contra procesadores core I7), utilizando especificaciones técnicas, pruebas, etc, siempre dando como ganador a los microprocesadores de sobremesa.