Cell and RSX question
This topic is locked from further discussion.
We hear a lot about how the RSX not being as powerfull as the 360's gpu, which I don't doubt, but my question is how will the Cell cpu aid the gpu in graphically intensive games? If this could be explained in layman's terms, i would appreciate it. Thanksheadninjadoghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor from what i have gathered so far, it basically uses the processor for all the major things, the GPU is there for the small stuff. remember the cell works completely different than a conventional computer, still a bit of a mystery to most, and there isnt much laymans explanations yet.from what i read in the wiki and other sources, it basically bridges the gap between GPU and CPU, the processor itself was designed to perform digital imaging and physical simulation VERY well. best to read it and run a few searches on the net about it to get the most info, and kinda piece it together.
Well, the Cell and RSX are very different from the 360's CPU and GPU, like stated. As far as graphics go, there really wont be much of a difference between the two systems, ever. Where you will notice a difference, is in the gameplay and physics. The PS3 will be able to handle more operations than the 360 when it comes to this. The Cell's SPE's are supposed to be physics masters LOL, but seriously. The SPE's do much of the calculating before the RSX even gets the information. The true power of the PS3 wont be tapped into for some time. Really, the PS3 has a lot of minor improvements over the 360 that add up, and fanboys just don't like to admit it (or aren't smart enough to know about the systems). Both systems are sweet though.BadSmerfTrue....but you really aren't considering how difficult it is for those "minor improvements" to be utilized...it just isn't worth the effort on the developers part, particularly on non exclusives.
Well, the Cell and RSX are very different from the 360's CPU and GPU, like stated. As far as graphics go, there really wont be much of a difference between the two systems, ever. Where you will notice a difference, is in the gameplay and physics. The PS3 will be able to handle more operations than the 360 when it comes to this. The Cell's SPE's are supposed to be physics masters LOL, but seriously. The SPE's do much of the calculating before the RSX even gets the information. The true power of the PS3 wont be tapped into for some time. Really, the PS3 has a lot of minor improvements over the 360 that add up, and fanboys just don't like to admit it (or aren't smart enough to know about the systems). Both systems are sweet though.BadSmerfagreed, but if you listen to some of the developer trailers like the one for motorstorm, they tout the amazing amount of shaders they could use for added realism, but yea, the physics from the cell is 1st class all the way, this is the future of realistic games, while the box is a nice machine, after watching GeoW videos, and seeing a guy walk over a dead guy and rolling him around like he was on the moon, i lost my faith in the physics of the system, and peoples ability to notice these things, to me that completely disrupted the realism for me. since the PS3 architecture is so much different then the other systems and PC's, its hard to tell what its capable of graphics wise, but i have a feeling its going to amaze everyone in another year or so
[QUOTE="BadSmerf"]Well, the Cell and RSX are very different from the 360's CPU and GPU, like stated. As far as graphics go, there really wont be much of a difference between the two systems, ever. Where you will notice a difference, is in the gameplay and physics. The PS3 will be able to handle more operations than the 360 when it comes to this. The Cell's SPE's are supposed to be physics masters LOL, but seriously. The SPE's do much of the calculating before the RSX even gets the information. The true power of the PS3 wont be tapped into for some time. Really, the PS3 has a lot of minor improvements over the 360 that add up, and fanboys just don't like to admit it (or aren't smart enough to know about the systems). Both systems are sweet though.fore_runnerTrue....but you really aren't considering how difficult it is for those "minor improvements" to be utilized...it just isn't worth the effort on the developers part, particularly on non exclusives. sony has been handing out developer kits, and most of them were happy with the kit, and are less intimidated by the system now. people said the same crap about the PS2, but obviously that wasnt a problem after they got it down, and it became amazing, look at god of war 2 for a while, that is amazing for the ps2
[QUOTE="fore_runner"][QUOTE="BadSmerf"]Well, the Cell and RSX are very different from the 360's CPU and GPU, like stated. As far as graphics go, there really wont be much of a difference between the two systems, ever. Where you will notice a difference, is in the gameplay and physics. The PS3 will be able to handle more operations than the 360 when it comes to this. The Cell's SPE's are supposed to be physics masters LOL, but seriously. The SPE's do much of the calculating before the RSX even gets the information. The true power of the PS3 wont be tapped into for some time. Really, the PS3 has a lot of minor improvements over the 360 that add up, and fanboys just don't like to admit it (or aren't smart enough to know about the systems). Both systems are sweet though.Gzus666True....but you really aren't considering how difficult it is for those "minor improvements" to be utilized...it just isn't worth the effort on the developers part, particularly on non exclusives. sony has been handing out developer kits, and most of them were happy with the kit, and are less intimidated by the system now. people said the same crap about the PS2, but obviously that wasnt a problem after they got it down, and it became amazing, look at god of war 2 for a while, that is amazing for the ps2 Quite true...6.5 years down the line. This isn't what I want. I don't want the PS3 being "unlocked" when the PS4 is already out.
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="fore_runner"][QUOTE="BadSmerf"]Well, the Cell and RSX are very different from the 360's CPU and GPU, like stated. As far as graphics go, there really wont be much of a difference between the two systems, ever. Where you will notice a difference, is in the gameplay and physics. The PS3 will be able to handle more operations than the 360 when it comes to this. The Cell's SPE's are supposed to be physics masters LOL, but seriously. The SPE's do much of the calculating before the RSX even gets the information. The true power of the PS3 wont be tapped into for some time. Really, the PS3 has a lot of minor improvements over the 360 that add up, and fanboys just don't like to admit it (or aren't smart enough to know about the systems). Both systems are sweet though.fore_runnerTrue....but you really aren't considering how difficult it is for those "minor improvements" to be utilized...it just isn't worth the effort on the developers part, particularly on non exclusives. sony has been handing out developer kits, and most of them were happy with the kit, and are less intimidated by the system now. people said the same crap about the PS2, but obviously that wasnt a problem after they got it down, and it became amazing, look at god of war 2 for a while, that is amazing for the ps2 Quite true...6.5 years down the line. This isn't what I want. I don't want the PS3 being "unlocked" when the PS4 is already out. thats how all consoles are unless they are underpowered, hard to say motorstorm and lair arent gorgeous, and they are coming a bit more than a half a year after it came out, so thats a good sign. Sony seems to be pushing more to help everyone understand their system, unlike the PS2 where they just threw it at em, they learned from that, and we will see more quality thanks to that. FF13 and MGS4 are going to be stunning, either late this year, or the beginning of next, so, i think they are going to deliver what we want this time quicker.
After the system launched devs decided that it was too hard, Sony was confused by this considering they had just done exactly what devs wanted.
I think what they're doing with the PS3 is giving devs an open box while still guiding them through the first year or so. They want more devs to get involved with thier system and be able to make a game with ease.
To add a bit of history to this discussion the Playstation 2's dev kit was in response to devlopers requests. After the Playstation X and the N64 Devlopers didn't want the traditional sort of dev kit that came with consoles (AKA one where you just plug things into an existing model more or less) and wanted more of an open kit to play around in and create thier own things out of it. This is why the PS2 STILL has potential that hasn't been used. It's up to developers to unlock that potential. Also why each game plays so uniquely (for example Metal Gear to Final Fantasy to Shadow of Collosus all feel as if they could be on different systems).makes sense, sounds like a logical step sony would take
After the system launched devs decided that it was too hard, Sony was confused by this considering they had just done exactly what devs wanted.
I think what they're doing with the PS3 is giving devs an open box while still guiding them through the first year or so. They want more devs to get involved with thier system and be able to make a game with ease.
thejoe1986
To add a bit of history to this discussion the Playstation 2's dev kit was in response to devlopers requests. After the Playstation X and the N64 Devlopers didn't want the traditional sort of dev kit that came with consoles (AKA one where you just plug things into an existing model more or less) and wanted more of an open kit to play around in and create thier own things out of it. This is why the PS2 STILL has potential that hasn't been used. It's up to developers to unlock that potential. Also why each game plays so uniquely (for example Metal Gear to Final Fantasy to Shadow of Collosus all feel as if they could be on different systems).great post.
After the system launched devs decided that it was too hard, Sony was confused by this considering they had just done exactly what devs wanted.
I think what they're doing with the PS3 is giving devs an open box while still guiding them through the first year or so. They want more devs to get involved with thier system and be able to make a game with ease.
thejoe1986
Sorry but the RSX is a more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360 GPU. The Ps3 is clocked in at 550mhz and can share information with the cell while the Xbox 360 is clocked in at 500mhz. So i dont know where you get this info, xbox is piece of hardware failing crap, unreliablebruce1leewhile it does have unreliable hardware, its hardly a piece of crap, the RSX is a very nice GPU, but that doesnt make as much of a difference for PS3, since it rarely relies on the GPU for any of its processing. have to remember that the box is based of conventional computer hardware, while the PS3 is a completely different architecture. just cause clock speed is higher, doesnt make it better, thats a VERY simplistic view of the hardware
Im going to tell you this, in the near future there is going to be games that only can by crated whit the PS3 (like LAIR), the developers of this games said that this game is only possible whit the ps3. and we are going to heard this allot in the future. the conclusion here is, that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360Pelon208well of course, but that, again, is a simplistic answer, he was looking for something more in depth, but thats still simple enough to understand. the reason is it so powerful is because of the cell's structure, so many sections that do individual tasks with a main portion that controls it all, and the speed at which they talk in the processor and between the other portions of the hardware like the GPU, ram, etc. from what ive read is considerably higher than that of the other box, from what ive seen on the wiki. its more complicated than a lot of us know, but it will shine through in some amazing physics, shaders, and since the cell can process so well, it should run everything a lot smoother and more efficiently.
Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.Pelon208im sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different.
On the flip side the 360's GPU is better at handling say a Crysis port (due to the intense use of vertex shading) while the PS3 a Quake wars port (uses more detailed texture shading) so in the end we have devs often using shiny surfaces for half assed physic's/particle effects or realistic 2056x1024 texture maps with more "BANG" and less "polish" (like MGS4 compared to GoW)
& like that one poster stated before there are more unique exp. with Sony becuase they didn't limit themselves to an developer API (DX9/10 it's an GFX library 4 deving games) with a Graphics Synthesizer (also incoporated in the RSX) each dev can create his own effects with OpenGL instead of being prohibited by a DX API. So with so many new games using the U3 engine (regardless of console) we will be getting many games that look similar to GoW or UT3 yet have no real graphical distinction between them (b'cuz they were deved with DX9) which is why Madden games look the same or for that matter GRAW 1 & 2 or even the orig Halo, Halo 2, and now what appears to be Halo 3 beta!
[QUOTE="thejoe1986"]To add a bit of history to this discussion the Playstation 2's dev kit was in response to devlopers requests. After the Playstation X and the N64 Devlopers didn't want the traditional sort of dev kit that came with consoles (AKA one where you just plug things into an existing model more or less) and wanted more of an open kit to play around in and create thier own things out of it. This is why the PS2 STILL has potential that hasn't been used. It's up to developers to unlock that potential. Also why each game plays so uniquely (for example Metal Gear to Final Fantasy to Shadow of Collosus all feel as if they could be on different systems).great post.
After the system launched devs decided that it was too hard, Sony was confused by this considering they had just done exactly what devs wanted.
I think what they're doing with the PS3 is giving devs an open box while still guiding them through the first year or so. They want more devs to get involved with thier system and be able to make a game with ease.
111v
I agree. It now makes a lot more sense to me now.
As someone who has actually programmed multi-threaded multicore archtecture computers (and also played with the CELL Linux dev kit on the PS3) I can tell you that you have a misunderstanding of how this all works.
I'm not trying to insult you but you have made a glib interpretation of how coding works on these machines.
1st off: The 360 has multiple cores which, by definition, requires multithreaded programming the same as the PS3.
2nd: The Cell is an evolution of the PPC architecture which simply magnifies the amount of power the multithreaded architecture can achieve in highly parallel operations. IBM has made both chips and my brother in law was one of the core designers on both.
The two CPU's are actually very similar in programming architecture. Where the PS3 and the 360 diverge is in how you structure the usage of MEMORY and exactly how you balance the processing. This is the major difference.
Since the PS3 has nearly an order of magnitude performance advantage over the 360 in certain matrix math operations this is clearly something which developers will have to factor into the equation.
It's about like... Saying that you have 2 good pastry chefs. However, one of the chefs (Mr. Cell) is 10 times better at doing cookies. Obviously you should try to leverage that CELL chef's cookie making ability.
As far as comparing the two GPU's... I don't have the statistics but I can say its probably not all that relevant to the discussion as the games we've seen on both show enough muscle to "shade and render" enough to show off next generation ability.
As someone who has actually programmed multi-threaded multicore archtecture computers (and also played with the CELL Linux dev kit on the PS3) I can tell you that you have a misunderstanding of how this all works.
I'm not trying to insult you but you have made a glib interpretation of how coding works on these machines.
1st off: The 360 has multiple cores which, by definition, requires multithreaded programming the same as the PS3.
2nd: The Cell is an evolution of the PPC architecture which simply magnifies the amount of power the multithreaded architecture can achieve in highly parallel operations. IBM has made both chips and my brother in law was one of the core designers on both.
The two CPU's are actually very similar in programming architecture. Where the PS3 and the 360 diverge is in how you structure the usage of MEMORY and exactly how balance the processing. This is the major difference.
Since the PS3 has nearly an order of magnitude performance advantage over the 360 in certain matrix math operations this is clearly something which developers will have to factor into the equation.
It's about like... Saying that you have 2 good pastry chefs. However, one of the chefs (Mr. Cell) is 10 times better at doing cookies. Obviously you should try to leverage that CELL chef's cookie making ability.
As far as comparing the two GPU's... I don't have the statistics but I can say they its probably not all that relevant to the discussion as the games we've seen on both show enough muscle to "shade and render" enough to show off next generation ability.
thanks for the post, definitely sheds some light on this one. i gathered that the Cell is good at a specialized process, i might not of conveyed it well in my posts, ha. interesting stuff, if you have anymore info, more indepth, please post, im rather interested in finding out more.
I don't have the time for nor do I want to get into a multi post argument about the speciifics on this stuff. I'll leave it at this....the Cell's POTENTIAL POWER is more than the Xenon....but, in real world usage for gaming, because of the architecture of the Cell, much of that potential is almost useless. To carry out your analogy.....it's like telling the chef they can have 3 large commercial ovens in the same room or 10 home sized ovens, each in a seperate room (rooms referring to a/symmetric proc). In theory the 10 would make more, but realistically it's alot easier to manage 3....and almost every chef would go with that. Just like EVERY multiplatform game is leading on the 360.Where the PS3 and the 360 diverge is in how you structure the usage of MEMORY and exactly how you balance the processing. This is the major difference.
Since the PS3 has nearly an order of magnitude performance advantage over the 360 in certain matrix math operations this is clearly something which developers will have to factor into the equation.
It's about like... Saying that you have 2 good pastry chefs. However, one of the chefs (Mr. Cell) is 10 times better at doing cookies. Obviously you should try to leverage that CELL chef's cookie making ability.
We are talking about gaming consoles performance.....in the end for 99% of games....the GPU is going to decide the winner here. The stats don't lie on these two GPU's......it's pretty clear which has the advantage.As far as comparing the two GPU's... I don't have the statistics but I can say its probably not all that relevant to the discussion as the games we've seen on both show enough muscle to "shade and render" enough to show off next generation ability.
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="fore_runner"][QUOTE="BadSmerf"]Well, the Cell and RSX are very different from the 360's CPU and GPU, like stated. As far as graphics go, there really wont be much of a difference between the two systems, ever. Where you will notice a difference, is in the gameplay and physics. The PS3 will be able to handle more operations than the 360 when it comes to this. The Cell's SPE's are supposed to be physics masters LOL, but seriously. The SPE's do much of the calculating before the RSX even gets the information. The true power of the PS3 wont be tapped into for some time. Really, the PS3 has a lot of minor improvements over the 360 that add up, and fanboys just don't like to admit it (or aren't smart enough to know about the systems). Both systems are sweet though.fore_runnerTrue....but you really aren't considering how difficult it is for those "minor improvements" to be utilized...it just isn't worth the effort on the developers part, particularly on non exclusives. sony has been handing out developer kits, and most of them were happy with the kit, and are less intimidated by the system now. people said the same crap about the PS2, but obviously that wasnt a problem after they got it down, and it became amazing, look at god of war 2 for a while, that is amazing for the ps2 Quite true...6.5 years down the line. This isn't what I want. I don't want the PS3 being "unlocked" when the PS4 is already out. MGS2(from 2001) had great graphics. Graphics so good, that next-gen games haven't been able to match. MGS3(2003) had 3D grass, which no next-gen game has yet. As you can see, it didn't take that long for the developers to get ahold. But these were exclusive games, so of course, these circumstances will be different than multiplat games.
I don't have the time for nor do I want to get into a multi post argument about the speciifics on this stuff. I'll leave it at this....the Cell's POTENTIAL POWER is more than the Xenon....but, in real world usage for gaming, because of the architecture of the Cell, much of that potential is almost useless. To carry out your analogy.....it's like telling the chef they can have 3 large commercial ovens in the same room or 10 home sized ovens, each in a seperate room (rooms referring to a/symmetric proc). In theory the 10 would make more, but realistically it's alot easier to manage 3....and almost every chef would go with that. Just like EVERY multiplatform game is leading on the 360.Where the PS3 and the 360 diverge is in how you structure the usage of MEMORY and exactly how you balance the processing. This is the major difference.
Since the PS3 has nearly an order of magnitude performance advantage over the 360 in certain matrix math operations this is clearly something which developers will have to factor into the equation.
It's about like... Saying that you have 2 good pastry chefs. However, one of the chefs (Mr. Cell) is 10 times better at doing cookies. Obviously you should try to leverage that CELL chef's cookie making ability.HulabalozaWe are talking about gaming consoles performance.....in the end for 99% of games....the GPU is going to decide the winner here. The stats don't lie on these two GPU's......it's pretty clear which has the advantage.As far as comparing the two GPU's... I don't have the statistics but I can say its probably not all that relevant to the discussion as the games we've seen on both show enough muscle to "shade and render" enough to show off next generation ability.
Okay I'm trying to be nice here. Clearly sir, you have done no development work on this or any of the types of architecture we are discussing so you should take a step back on this part of the discussion.
I'm trying to tell you that the multithreaded pipe on the PS3 is simply a "more advanced" version of what is identically used on the 360. Saying the PS3 won't use it is WRONG.
That's like saying no one will use the TURBO on an engine.
*** I can applaud your enthusiasm for the 360 but its simply "not" that different from the PS3. As I've mentioned the biggest difference is simply a matter of balancing the CPU capability and RAM.
As far as GPU we're really discussing the difference in KETCHUP. For the most part all ketchup is "close enough" in taste and texture so that no one will care.
Keep in mind sir, I'm trying to be nice but you are talking out of your technical expertise and it is very apparent.
Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.Pelon208
I think your´re wrong...
Cause a cpu is diferent from a ppe, to explain it better:
Ps3 only has got one core ( where X360 has 3 cores) with seven not eigth SPE´s, this type of processors are very specialized to do things like streaming, physics... And i believe you can´t compare a SPE to a Core....
If you have a lot of work to do and you are lazy you will simply give all the work to one person.
Obviously, that is inefficient. You have one guy working and several guys drinking coffee and surfing the net.
What the 360 and the PS3 both have to do is assign "some work" to the first guy, then assign some other work to the next guy, etc. etc.
If you are smart about dividing your work up you will have everyone in the office doing their fair share of work.
The only way the 360 achieved Gears of War is by dividing work up into the 3 cores of the CPU.
The PS3 Cell CPU basically has a bigger office with more people. How ANYONE can consider this a weakness or a problem is beyond my comprehension.
Sorry but the RSX is a more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360 GPU. The Ps3 is clocked in at 550mhz and can share information with the cell while the Xbox 360 is clocked in at 500mhz. So i dont know where you get this info, xbox is piece of hardware failing crap, unreliablebruce1leeWow.... Ignorance, in all it's glory. It is really an amazing sight.
[QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.menmau
I think your´re wrong...
Cause a cpu is diferent from a dsp, to explain it better:
Ps3 only has got one core ( where X360 has 3 cores) with seven not eigth (Digital Signal Processors), this type of processors are very specialized to do things like streaming, physics... And i believe you can´t compare a DSP to a Core....
[QUOTE="bruce1lee"]Sorry but the RSX is a more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360 GPU. The Ps3 is clocked in at 550mhz and can share information with the cell while the Xbox 360 is clocked in at 500mhz. So i dont know where you get this info, xbox is piece of hardware failing crap, unreliableGzus666while it does have unreliable hardware, its hardly a piece of crap, the RSX is a very nice GPU, but that doesnt make as much of a difference for PS3, since it rarely relies on the GPU for any of its processing. have to remember that the box is based of conventional computer hardware, while the PS3 is a completely different architecture. just cause clock speed is higher, doesnt make it better, thats a VERY simplistic view of the hardware Do you have idea of what you speak? If it RARELY relied on the GPU, good chance the GPU would have been eliminated completely. The RSX plays a MAJOR role in the PS3, and to anyone who thinks otherwise, you are simply uninformed. Without the RSX, the PS3 would not even be comparable to the 360, let alone competition to it, at least graphically. The GPU will process the majority of the scene, and the cell may rarely be used for some effect here or there.
[QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.Gzus666im sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different. It is most definitely harder....
[QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.menmau
I think your´re wrong...
Cause a cpu is diferent from a dsp, to explain it better:
Ps3 only has got one core ( where X360 has 3 cores) with seven not eigth (Digital Signal Processors), this type of processors are very specialized to do things like streaming, physics... And i believe you can´t compare a DSP to a Core....
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.snyper1982im sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different. It is most definitely harder.... well, according to UntoldDreams, who seems to have a greater grasp of this than anyone ive seen on here yet, since he says he programs them and is inlaws with someone on the team for the Cell, he stated that it is just as easy, its just more "people" if you will to send the orders too. not to sound condecending, but the guy clearly knows what hes talking about
[QUOTE="menmau"]
[QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.Gzus666
I think your´re wrong...
Cause a cpu is diferent from a dsp, to explain it better:
Ps3 only has got one core ( where X360 has 3 cores) with seven not eigth (Digital Signal Processors), this type of processors are very specialized to do things like streaming, physics... And i believe you can´t compare a DSP to a Core....
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.snyper1982im sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different. It is most definitely harder.... it's easier to program for than the PS2 was(stated by many developers). And we all see how that turned out.
[QUOTE="Hulabaloza"]I don't have the time for nor do I want to get into a multi post argument about the speciifics on this stuff. I'll leave it at this....the Cell's POTENTIAL POWER is more than the Xenon....but, in real world usage for gaming, because of the architecture of the Cell, much of that potential is almost useless. To carry out your analogy.....it's like telling the chef they can have 3 large commercial ovens in the same room or 10 home sized ovens, each in a seperate room (rooms referring to a/symmetric proc). In theory the 10 would make more, but realistically it's alot easier to manage 3....and almost every chef would go with that. Just like EVERY multiplatform game is leading on the 360.Where the PS3 and the 360 diverge is in how you structure the usage of MEMORY and exactly how you balance the processing. This is the major difference.
Since the PS3 has nearly an order of magnitude performance advantage over the 360 in certain matrix math operations this is clearly something which developers will have to factor into the equation.
It's about like... Saying that you have 2 good pastry chefs. However, one of the chefs (Mr. Cell) is 10 times better at doing cookies. Obviously you should try to leverage that CELL chef's cookie making ability.UntoldDreamsWe are talking about gaming consoles performance.....in the end for 99% of games....the GPU is going to decide the winner here. The stats don't lie on these two GPU's......it's pretty clear which has the advantage.As far as comparing the two GPU's... I don't have the statistics but I can say its probably not all that relevant to the discussion as the games we've seen on both show enough muscle to "shade and render" enough to show off next generation ability.
Okay I'm trying to be nice here. Clearly sir, you have done no development work on this or any of the types of architecture we are discussing so you should take a step back on this part of the discussion.
I'm trying to tell you that the multithreaded pipe on the PS3 is simply a "more advanced" version of what is identically used on the 360. Saying the PS3 won't use it is WRONG.
That's like saying no one will use the TURBO on an engine.
*** I can applaud your enthusiasm for the 360 but its simply "not" that different from the PS3. As I've mentioned the biggest difference is simply a matter of balancing the CPU capability and RAM.
As far as GPU we're really discussing the difference in KETCHUP. For the most part all ketchup is "close enough" in taste and texture so that no one will care.
Keep in mind sir, I'm trying to be nice but you are talking out of your technical expertise and it is very apparent.
I know absolutely NOTHING about Code and Development procedures but i do agree with you whole heartdly. All in all i think that the PS3 and the 360 have really bright futures if RFOM and GeOW are any indication. GAME ON!
[QUOTE="snyper1982"][QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.Gzus666im sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different. It is most definitely harder.... well, according to UntoldDreams, who seems to have a greater grasp of this than anyone ive seen on here yet, since he says he programs them and is inlaws with someone on the team for the Cell, he stated that it is just as easy, its just more "people" if you will to send the orders too. not to sound condecending, but the guy clearly knows what hes talking about Using that analogy even, it is HARDER to coordinate 8 people than 3....
[QUOTE="snyper1982"][QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.eclipsed4utooim sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different. It is most definitely harder.... it's easier to program for than the PS2 was(stated by many developers). And we all see how that turned out. Your point? I love how you try to throw something in from left field, but that has exactly what to do with MY POINT?
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.snyper1982im sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different. It is most definitely harder.... No it's not "hard" to code for the SPEs as there's already efficient high level language compilers out, the hard thing is to sync the CELL and RSX. They are already doing physics and AI soly on SPEs with great results.
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="bruce1lee"]Sorry but the RSX is a more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360 GPU. The Ps3 is clocked in at 550mhz and can share information with the cell while the Xbox 360 is clocked in at 500mhz. So i dont know where you get this info, xbox is piece of hardware failing crap, unreliablesnyper1982while it does have unreliable hardware, its hardly a piece of crap, the RSX is a very nice GPU, but that doesnt make as much of a difference for PS3, since it rarely relies on the GPU for any of its processing. have to remember that the box is based of conventional computer hardware, while the PS3 is a completely different architecture. just cause clock speed is higher, doesnt make it better, thats a VERY simplistic view of the hardware Do you have idea of what you speak? If it RARELY relied on the GPU, good chance the GPU would have been eliminated completely. The RSX plays a MAJOR role in the PS3, and to anyone who thinks otherwise, you are simply uninformed. Without the RSX, the PS3 would not even be comparable to the 360, let alone competition to it, at least graphically. The GPU will process the majority of the scene, and the cell may rarely be used for some effect here or there.
Sniper you've stated this type of stuff more than once. I'd like you to understand that the GPU is an even MORE specialized version of what the CELL does as a programmable vector processor and is inflexible in many cases:
Here's an example for you to see depending on the TYPE of graphical operation required the Cell can CREMATE a GPU. GPU's are not MAGIC they are simply highly specialized hardware.
"To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%."
http://gametomorrow.com/blog/index.php/2005/11/30/gpus-vs-cell/
=========
Recently I came across a link on www.gpgpu.org that I found interesting. It described a method of ray-tracing quaternion Julia fractals using the floating point power in graphics processing units (GPUs). The author of the GPU code , Keenan Crane, stated that “This kind of algorithm is pretty much ideal for the GPU - extremely high arithmetic intensity and almost zero bandwidth usage”. I thought it would be interesting to port this Nvidia CG code to the Cell processor, using the public SDK, and see how it performs given that it was ideal for a GPU. First we directly translated the CG code line for line to C + SPE intrinsics. All the CG code structures and data types were maintained. Then we wrote a CG framework to execute this shader for Cell that included a backend image compression and network delivery layer for the finished images. To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%. We reserved one SPE for the image compression and delivery task. Furthermore the way CG structures it SIMD computation is inefficient as it causes large percentages of the code to execute in scalar mode. This is due to the way they structure their vector data, AOS vs SOA. By converting this CG shader from AOS to SOA form, SIMD utilization was much higher which resulted in Cell out performing the Nvidia 7800 by a factor of 5 - 6x using only 7 SPEs for rendering. Given that the Nvidia 7800 GT is listed as having 313 GFLOPs of computational power and seven 3.2 GHz SPEs only have 179.2 GFLOPs this seems impossible but then again maybe we should start reading more white papers and less marketing hype.
[QUOTE="snyper1982"][QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="Pelon208"]Well, of course is going to be more complicated to created games, this is new technology. The Cell has 8 heads, and the 360 has only 3, that of course makes the ps3 games harder to created, but you have to much power to created awesome games. And i know that many of us doesn`t understand what the Cell really is, and maybe some developers doesn´t know too, but they and we will, and wen that happens you will see.TE_Lawrenceim sorry, but your grammar is killing me. i dont care about capitalizing, but that was almost illegible. the reason the cell is more complicated is not cause it has 8 "heads" as you call them, but its a completely new architecture. its technically 7 SPE's threads that process, and the main PPE that basically hands out the orders correctly to the SPE's. its a mix of basic processing technology, with a new style multi-threading. its not necessarily harder, just different. It is most definitely harder.... No it's not "hard" to code for the SPEs as there's already efficient high level language compilers out, the hard thing is to sync the CELL and RSX. They are already doing physics and AI soly on SPEs with great results. So I guess syncing the cell and RSX has absolutely nothing to do with coding?
[QUOTE="snyper1982"][QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="bruce1lee"]Sorry but the RSX is a more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360 GPU. The Ps3 is clocked in at 550mhz and can share information with the cell while the Xbox 360 is clocked in at 500mhz. So i dont know where you get this info, xbox is piece of hardware failing crap, unreliableUntoldDreamswhile it does have unreliable hardware, its hardly a piece of crap, the RSX is a very nice GPU, but that doesnt make as much of a difference for PS3, since it rarely relies on the GPU for any of its processing. have to remember that the box is based of conventional computer hardware, while the PS3 is a completely different architecture. just cause clock speed is higher, doesnt make it better, thats a VERY simplistic view of the hardware Do you have idea of what you speak? If it RARELY relied on the GPU, good chance the GPU would have been eliminated completely. The RSX plays a MAJOR role in the PS3, and to anyone who thinks otherwise, you are simply uninformed. Without the RSX, the PS3 would not even be comparable to the 360, let alone competition to it, at least graphically. The GPU will process the majority of the scene, and the cell may rarely be used for some effect here or there.
Sniper you've stated this type of stuff more than once. I'd like you to understand that the GPU is an even MORE specialized version of what the CELL does as a programmable vector processor and is inflexible in many cases:
Here's an example for you to see depending on the TYPE of graphical operation required the Cell can CREMATE a GPU. GPU's are not MAGIC they are simply highly specialized hardware.
To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%.
http://gametomorrow.com/blog/index.php/2005/11/30/gpus-vs-cell/
=========
Recently I came across a link on www.gpgpu.org that I found interesting. It described a method of ray-tracing quaternion Julia fractals using the floating point power in graphics processing units (GPUs). The author of the GPU code , Keenan Crane, stated that “This kind of algorithm is pretty much ideal for the GPU - extremely high arithmetic intensity and almost zero bandwidth usage”. I thought it would be interesting to port this Nvidia CG code to the Cell processor, using the public SDK, and see how it performs given that it was ideal for a GPU. First we directly translated the CG code line for line to C + SPE intrinsics. All the CG code structures and data types were maintained. Then we wrote a CG framework to execute this shader for Cell that included a backend image compression and network delivery layer for the finished images. To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%. We reserved one SPE for the image compression and delivery task. Furthermore the way CG structures it SIMD computation is inefficient as it causes large percentages of the code to execute in scalar mode. This is due to the way they structure their vector data, AOS vs SOA. By converting this CG shader from AOS to SOA form, SIMD utilization was much higher which resulted in Cell out performing the Nvidia 7800 by a factor of 5 - 6x using only 7 SPEs for rendering. Given that the Nvidia 7800 GT is listed as having 313 GFLOPs of computational power and seven 3.2 GHz SPEs only have 179.2 GFLOPs this seems impossible but then again maybe we should start reading more white papers and less marketing hype.
I understand that.... But to act like the GPU is afterthought in the design is flat out asinine. The GPU plays a MAJOR role in the system. If it was not needed, it would not be there, simple as that.
[QUOTE="UntoldDreams"][QUOTE="snyper1982"][QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="bruce1lee"]Sorry but the RSX is a more powerful GPU than the Xbox 360 GPU. The Ps3 is clocked in at 550mhz and can share information with the cell while the Xbox 360 is clocked in at 500mhz. So i dont know where you get this info, xbox is piece of hardware failing crap, unreliablesnyper1982while it does have unreliable hardware, its hardly a piece of crap, the RSX is a very nice GPU, but that doesnt make as much of a difference for PS3, since it rarely relies on the GPU for any of its processing. have to remember that the box is based of conventional computer hardware, while the PS3 is a completely different architecture. just cause clock speed is higher, doesnt make it better, thats a VERY simplistic view of the hardware Do you have idea of what you speak? If it RARELY relied on the GPU, good chance the GPU would have been eliminated completely. The RSX plays a MAJOR role in the PS3, and to anyone who thinks otherwise, you are simply uninformed. Without the RSX, the PS3 would not even be comparable to the 360, let alone competition to it, at least graphically. The GPU will process the majority of the scene, and the cell may rarely be used for some effect here or there.
Sniper you've stated this type of stuff more than once. I'd like you to understand that the GPU is an even MORE specialized version of what the CELL does as a programmable vector processor and is inflexible in many cases:
Here's an example for you to see depending on the TYPE of graphical operation required the Cell can CREMATE a GPU. GPU's are not MAGIC they are simply highly specialized hardware.
To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%.
http://gametomorrow.com/blog/index.php/2005/11/30/gpus-vs-cell/
=========
Recently I came across a link on www.gpgpu.org that I found interesting. It described a method of ray-tracing quaternion Julia fractals using the floating point power in graphics processing units (GPUs). The author of the GPU code , Keenan Crane, stated that “This kind of algorithm is pretty much ideal for the GPU - extremely high arithmetic intensity and almost zero bandwidth usage”. I thought it would be interesting to port this Nvidia CG code to the Cell processor, using the public SDK, and see how it performs given that it was ideal for a GPU. First we directly translated the CG code line for line to C + SPE intrinsics. All the CG code structures and data types were maintained. Then we wrote a CG framework to execute this shader for Cell that included a backend image compression and network delivery layer for the finished images. To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%. We reserved one SPE for the image compression and delivery task. Furthermore the way CG structures it SIMD computation is inefficient as it causes large percentages of the code to execute in scalar mode. This is due to the way they structure their vector data, AOS vs SOA. By converting this CG shader from AOS to SOA form, SIMD utilization was much higher which resulted in Cell out performing the Nvidia 7800 by a factor of 5 - 6x using only 7 SPEs for rendering. Given that the Nvidia 7800 GT is listed as having 313 GFLOPs of computational power and seven 3.2 GHz SPEs only have 179.2 GFLOPs this seems impossible but then again maybe we should start reading more white papers and less marketing hype.
I understand that.... But to act like the GPU is afterthought in the design is flat out asinine. The GPU plays a MAJOR role in the system. If it was not needed, it would not be there, simple as that.
Agreed. The GPU is a major contributor to the PS3 as it provides a lot of raw horsepower for certain graphical operations.
That being said if the GPU was completely missing the CELL alone would still be able to create 3D games completely in Software better than any other single CPU on the planet (though certainly not as good as CELL+RSX obviously).
That's why IBM/Sony/Toshiba sunk 1 billion dollars into the R&D of the chip right?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment