What? Have you seen MGS4 or KZ2? No graphics compare! Seriously though, maybe the cost would have been cheaper if you didn't stroke your ego by making custom processors Sony. What is it doing that others aren't?
No, probably not. I enjoy my PS3 very much but it would have benefited developers and consumers if Sony had not gone with the Cell architecture. Developers would have found it much easier to port and develop games for the machine and more consumers would have been able to purchase the console as the price would have been a little lower.
kinda strange because even when the cell shows its worth it slowed development on games and made 360 the place to go for multiplats. was that worth a slight edge in graphics in three or four games???
of course it was worth it, pushing the boundrys of technology is always worth it, even if it isn't as successful as some people wanted, one guy uses ps3's donated by SONY to track stars and astral bodies, if there's an asteroid heading our way, he will spot it, try and tell me that ain't a good thing, the ps3 with the cell does more than just run games and play BR movies, take folding@home for example
of course it was worth it, pushing the boundrys of technology is always worth it, even if it isn't as successful as some people wanted, one guy uses ps3's donated by SONY to track stars and astral bodies, if there's an asteroid heading our way, he will spot it, try and tell me that ain't a good thing, the ps3 with the cell does more than just run games and play BR movies, take folding@home for exampledelta3074
Well for technology's sake, yeah its a good thing. But for Sony sake it was not.
[QUOTE="delta3074"]of course it was worth it, pushing the boundrys of technology is always worth it, even if it isn't as successful as some people wanted, one guy uses ps3's donated by SONY to track stars and astral bodies, if there's an asteroid heading our way, he will spot it, try and tell me that ain't a good thing, the ps3 with the cell does more than just run games and play BR movies, take folding@home for exampleSAGE_OF_FIRE
Well for technology's sake, yeah its a good thing. But for Sony sake it was not. And the spokesperson for Sony has finally arrived. Now my Hirai.....Can you tell us why? Before you mention how much Sony lose per console.....please be aware that PS2 also had a few year period of garnering Sony losses per unit sold. Blu Ray is great for mine......I have no problem with it being there...and would prefer it to be there than not.....and as for the cell......Well yes, it is a complicated, hard to harness piece of the PS3 infrastructure........But it is what sets Sony's machine part from the others......Wii has the Nunchuka, 360 has the pc friendly thing going, and PS3 has a bit more unknown potential and possibly diversity in the cell. And as shown with PS2's emotion engine....the best capabilities that come from the system are usually later in the consoles lifecycle. So yes, Cell was worth it, and has the potential to be a very lucrative edge for Sony and PS3.....We have multiplat developers coming out more and more saying 360 is coming close to tapping out power, and that they have yet to do that with PS3. So I say for gamers 1stly, and ultimately Sony down the track....the cell was a great feature to add.
[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="delta3074"]of course it was worth it, pushing the boundrys of technology is always worth it, even if it isn't as successful as some people wanted, one guy uses ps3's donated by SONY to track stars and astral bodies, if there's an asteroid heading our way, he will spot it, try and tell me that ain't a good thing, the ps3 with the cell does more than just run games and play BR movies, take folding@home for exampleHarry_Balzac
Well for technology's sake, yeah its a good thing. But for Sony sake it was not. And the spokesperson for Sony has finally arrived. Now my Hirai.....Can you tell us why? Before you mention how much Sony lose per console.....please be aware that PS2 also had a few year period of garnering Sony losses per unit sold. Blu Ray is great for mine......I have no problem with it being there...and would prefer it to be there than not.....and as for the cell......Well yes, it is a complicated, hard to harness piece of the PS3 infrastructure........But it is what sets Sony's machine part from the others......Wii has the Nunchuka, 360 has the pc friendly thing going, and PS3 has a bit more unknown potential and possibly diversity in the cell. And as shown with PS2's emotion engine....the best capabilities that come from the system are usually later in the consoles lifecycle. So yes, Cell was worth it, and has the potential to be a very lucrative edge for Sony and PS3.....We have multiplat developers coming out more and more saying 360 is coming close to tapping out power, and that they have yet to do that with PS3. So I say for gamers 1stly, and ultimately Sony down the track....the cell was a great feature to add.
thank you harry balzac. lol.... I agree the ps3 might shine a bit down the road but i dont see anything on the system that gives it this huge edge. I believe games like uncharted 2 are tapping the cells "power" and we are pretty much seeing what it can do now. It's still not at a huge advantage. yes you might be able to get slightly better looking games and better draw distances and more photo realitic environments but its really not like the 360 cant do really good stuff as well. They both have enough powah to get through.... Games like Alan Wake, Mass EFfect 2, Forza 3, Splinter cell, World at War all, FFXIII all look excellent running on the 360. So im going to spend $400 to get maybe 4 games, 2 of which i might actually play that look slightly better and do really pretty environments? That's not happening.
That said if the ps3 had a ton of exclusives and all the multiplat developers taking advantage of it, yes it would be worth it. When it comes down to a few games looking really nice, and compromises every else, no it's not.
Sony took a gamble. The Cell was able to leap frog other processors in terms of FLOPs performance at the expense of architecture familiarity and mature tools. It is not entirely unlike the gamble they took last gen, and it worked out pretty well for them then.
Not really. Though now Sony is stuck with it. Hopefully the next cell processor is going to be vastly more powerful than the current.
Wasdie
Do you realize that when it came out, for a short time, the cell processor was more powerful than any pc processor? I agree that the next one needs to be vastly more powerful, but you made it seem like the current one wasn't really powerful.
Not really. Though now Sony is stuck with it. Hopefully the next cell processor is going to be vastly more powerful than the current.
Jacobistheman
Do you realize that when it came out, for a short time, the cell processor was more powerful than any pc processor? I agree that the next one needs to be vastly more powerful, but you made it seem like the current one wasn't really powerful.
Well now it's kind of crap compared to modern PC's
Not really. Though now Sony is stuck with it. Hopefully the next cell processor is going to be vastly more powerful than the current.
Hanass
Do you realize that when it came out, for a short time, the cell processor was more powerful than any pc processor? I agree that the next one needs to be vastly more powerful, but you made it seem like the current one wasn't really powerful.
Well now it's kind of crap compared to modern PC's
[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Do you realize that when it came out, for a short time, the cell processor was more powerful than any pc processor? I agree that the next one needs to be vastly more powerful, but you made it seem like the current one wasn't really powerful.Jacobistheman
Well now it's kind of crap compared to modern PC's
As it should be coming out 3 years ago. why force up the price to be on the cutting edge for 2 weeks when you could use off the shelf items and perform as well for a lot less (360)
Well now it's kind of crap compared to modern PC's
surrealnumber5
As it should be coming out 3 years ago. why force up the price to be on the cutting edge for 2 weeks when you could use off the shelf items and perform as well for a lot less (360)
I think the 360 has more RAM(someone said that in gs) so it does perform as well as it does. Anyway, I think it is worth it. Hopefully The Cell is more improved and Toshiba lets sony use it.
the cell architecture was created by otacon in order to rid the world of liquid and the SOP. Everyone who owns the cell processor will be protected from rogue nanomachines. My main mission is to make sure that people dont fall under the control of the Patriot corporation codenamed "microsoft". the cell will help save the world from total destruction. /end transmission.
personally no cause forcing devs to learn a brand new architecture every gen that will only be useful on one system only just brings up alot of unnessesary hassles.
[QUOTE="bleehum"][QUOTE="killab2oo5"]A better question is, "Blu-ray...was it worth it?". It's been the source of most PS3 and Sony problems.killab2oo5
How so? It's the cause for PS3's delay, high price, and Sony losing lotsa money. Didn't MS lose 3billion last gen with pretty user friendly technology, and record the shortest lifespan in history for a console manufacturer......And didn't MS have mass losses due to manufacturing costs outweighing sell prices with 360 as well, not only that didn't they lose another crap load on a understated rampant hardware fault that forced them to add an extra 2 years warranty exclusively for the 3RROD plague. Nintendo are the only ones around today that do not take losses on hardware....they profit from day one....wheras MS and Sony take a massive hit until they can lower production costs significantly. PS2's proprietry Emotion Engine lost Sony plenty for the 1st few years. Blu Ray, 60gig HDD(Larger than 360 launch machines 20gigs), HDMI outpoint, built in wi fi, bluetooth controllers, sixaxis technology (the only thing that wasn't worth it), free online service all combined were the reason PS3 had a slightly higher price than the premium at the time. Im glad they went with everything they did (except shock should have replaced sixaxis from launch), I'm happy with Blu Ray, I only use Wi fi for online and it's hitch free, 60gigs is a great size for a standard console HDD, HDMI........... I use pretty much every feature that supposedly makes the PS3 unreachably, ridiculously more expensive. Yet here in Australia, if I simply bought a 360 and had it online for the 3 years of this gen that have sped by.....it would have already cost me another $300Au... But with a 360 and PS3, but only my PS3 online....I am able to buy three extra games with that money. A small minority of developers either dislike the cell, or don't have or want the resources to work with it.
Not really. Though now Sony is stuck with it. Hopefully the next cell processor is going to be vastly more powerful than the current.
Jacobistheman
Do you realize that when it came out, for a short time, the cell processor was more powerful than any pc processor? I agree that the next one needs to be vastly more powerful, but you made it seem like the current one wasn't really powerful.
[QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="bleehum"] How so?Harry_Balzac
It's the cause for PS3's delay, high price, and Sony losing lotsa money. Didn't MS lose 3billion last gen with pretty user friendly technology, and record the shortest lifespan in history for a console manufacturer......And didn't MS have mass losses due to manufacturing costs outweighing sell prices with 360 as well, not only that didn't they lose another crap load on a understated rampant hardware fault that forced them to add an extra 2 years warranty exclusively for the 3RROD plague. Nintendo are the only ones around today that do not take losses on hardware....they profit from day one....wheras MS and Sony take a massive hit until they can lower production costs significantly. PS2's proprietry Emotion Engine lost Sony plenty for the 1st few years. Blu Ray, 60gig HDD(Larger than 360 launch machines 20gigs), HDMI outpoint, built in wi fi, bluetooth controllers, sixaxis technology (the only thing that wasn't worth it), free online service all combined were the reason PS3 had a slightly higher price than the premium at the time. Im glad they went with everything they did (except shock should have replaced sixaxis from launch), I'm happy with Blu Ray, I only use Wi fi for online and it's hitch free, 60gigs is a great size for a standard console HDD, HDMI........... I use pretty much every feature that supposedly makes the PS3 unreachably, ridiculously more expensive. Yet here in Australia, if I simply bought a 360 and had it online for the 3 years of this gen that have sped by.....it would have already cost me another $300Au... But with a 360 and PS3, but only my PS3 online....I am able to buy three extra games with that money. A small minority of developers either dislike the cell, or don't have or want the resources to work with it. And is it not also true that nothing you said here is relevant. Cell has not proved it's worth. The fact is there is no discernable difference between the quality of graphics, ai and gameplay between the Xbox 360 and PS3, despite Sony's claims prior to launch. Sony always maintained that the wait for Cell would be worth is and that the PS3 would be superior to it's competitors. It hasn't and Sony just lost time to Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Nintendo.) THIS IS NOT TO SAY THE PS3 IS A BAD SYSTEM There are plenty of great exclusive games that distinguish the PS3 and make it a great system to own. None of those exclusive games however are utilising some secret power of cell and would all be possible on PCs and Xbox 360s. Your explanation that owning a 360 would cost you more money in Australia is a total joke. Xbox Pro still retails for $300AU less than the PS3. FACT You could buy 3 new release games RIGHT NOW with your Xbox purchase.
[QUOTE="Lolz_Master"]the cell architecture was created by otacon in order to rid the world of liquid and the SOP. Everyone who owns the cell processor will be protected from rogue nanomachines. My main mission is to make sure that people dont fall under the control of the Patriot corporation codenamed "microsoft". the cell will help save the world from total destruction. /end transmission. lol, Pure Awesomeness man :lol:
If it had anything to do with the PS3 releasing a year late and for $600, then no. It's been out for a few years now and I still don't see the advantages. 360 games look basically the same.
I haven't seen Cell used to do anything that isn't possible on other platforms, it is mostly being used to extend on the GPUs capabilities. Why would you design a unique CPU if you are just going to cannibalize its performance for GPU work? They could have just worked on a better GPU from day 1 and gained the graphical edge without Cells higher development difficulty.
Do I think it was worth it? Absolutely not, the difficulties it brings do not justify the advantages we have seen so far. If Cell was actually being used to do something different, something never seen before, then perhaps I would have a better opinion on it. But based on how it is being used now they might as well have just used a better GPU, I have no doubt Cell will be replaced by something more practical in the future.
Better A.I, Better Physics, Better Animations, Better Graphics i definitely think so. The Cell is really giving the PC a run for its money, the majority of PS3's top titles look better than the PCs. Uncharted, MGS4,Killzone 2. I haven't seen an 09 PC title look as impressive as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2.
[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"]Better A.I, Better Physics, Better Animations, Better Graphics i definitely think so. The Cell is really giving the PC a run for its money, the majority of PS3's top titles look better than the PCs. Uncharted, MGS4,Killzone 2. I haven't seen an 09 PC title look as impressive as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2. Oh my.
Sony would have been much better off opting for a customized off-the-shelff CPU & GPU from the beginning.
Instead they poured billions into the CELL hoping it could work as a CPU & GPU and when that turned out bad they had to run to Nvidia in order to get the RSX GPU which IMO they got kinda ripped-off with. What they basically got was a stripped down Nvidia 7800- hardly a world-beater (despite the 'Reality Synthesizer' hype).
To make matters worse the CELL inside the PS3 is nerfed in many ways compared to the orignal designs & the RSX lost almost 10% in speed in a more secret nerf.
The reason why the X360 has been able to compete so well with the PS3 is that it's got a good general purprose CPU that is easy to work with & crucially a damn good GPU (considering it released in 2005).
the CELL is powerful in many ways but it's hard to work with because for every strength it's got a weakness.
Better A.I, Better Physics, Better Animations, Better Graphics i definitely think so. The Cell is really giving the PC a run for its money, the majority of PS3's top titles look better than the PCs. Uncharted, MGS4,Killzone 2. I haven't seen an 09 PC title look as impressive as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2. Adrian_Cloud
+1 to the mass of people here who don't know a damn thing about computers..
What? Have you seen MGS4 or KZ2? No graphics compare! Seriously though, maybe the cost would have been cheaper if you didn't stroke your ego by making custom processors Sony. What is it doing that others aren't?cainetao11
I don't know, was the cell to blame for the cost, or BluRay?
No, Sony wanted to have the cell in to PC's and hardware everywhere by this time frame, it failed pretty bad from a business perspective. It was never meant for gaming, but having it in the PS3 gave Sony hope that the PS3 would sell thereby makign the cell cheaper to manufacturer. Well, we all know PS3 is in last place in sales, and the Cell has not yet shown up in any other major household hardware... therefore EPIC waste of money on Sony's part, and to top it off, it makes the PS3 harder to program games on.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sony originally put 2 Cell Processors into the PS3 but then they found it was just too powerful in terms of graphics and CPU power and they had to cut it down to an RSX chip as the graphics chip?
I remember Sony putting 2 CELL PROCESSORS INTO THE PS3 and Kaz said it was way too much power and he also said that with just 1 Cell, Sony could beat Microsoft in graphics and CPU.
It is pretty much true.
They would have used 2 Cell processors if Kaz had not said it was too powerful like it was gonna blow up the world or some sort.
He said the things powerful enough with just 1, RSX chip was put in as a back up for the 2nd Cell. Bad idea.
Strange, there now going back to the 2 Cell Processor thing again in PS4.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sony originally put 2 Cell Processors into the PS3 but then they found it was just too powerful in terms of graphics and CPU power and they had to cut it down to an RSX chip as the graphics chip?
I remember Sony putting 2 CELL PROCESSORS INTO THE PS3 and Kaz said it was way too much power and he also said that with just 1 Cell, Sony could beat Microsoft in graphics and CPU.
It is pretty much true.
They would have used 2 Cell processors if Kaz had not said it was too powerful like it was gonna blow up the world or some sort.
He said the things powerful enough with just 1, RSX chip was put in as a back up for the 2nd Cell. Bad idea.
Strange, there now going back to the 2 Cell Processor thing again in PS4.
garland51
The PS3 has 8 Cell processors, with one disabled. RSX was developed by nVidia and not related to the Cell at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sony originally put 2 Cell Processors into the PS3 but then they found it was just too powerful in terms of graphics and CPU power and they had to cut it down to an RSX chip as the graphics chip?
I remember Sony putting 2 CELL PROCESSORS INTO THE PS3 and Kaz said it was way too much power and he also said that with just 1 Cell, Sony could beat Microsoft in graphics and CPU.
It is pretty much true.
They would have used 2 Cell processors if Kaz had not said it was too powerful like it was gonna blow up the world or some sort.
He said the things powerful enough with just 1, RSX chip was put in as a back up for the 2nd Cell. Bad idea.
Strange, there now going back to the 2 Cell Processor thing again in PS4.
XaosII
The PS3 has 8 Cell processors, with one disabled. RSX was developed by nVidia and not related to the Cell at all.
the ps3 has 1 cell processor, its built with 1 ppc core and 7 spu's Its not an 8 core processor... the spu's are like mini processors, and as for the 2 cells... AHAHHAHAHAHHA no they had a hard time making both produce graphics, it doesn't have all the same capabilities that a full fledged gpu has.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sony originally put 2 Cell Processors into the PS3 but then they found it was just too powerful in terms of graphics and CPU power and they had to cut it down to an RSX chip as the graphics chip?
I remember Sony putting 2 CELL PROCESSORS INTO THE PS3 and Kaz said it was way too much power and he also said that with just 1 Cell, Sony could beat Microsoft in graphics and CPU.
It is pretty much true.
They would have used 2 Cell processors if Kaz had not said it was too powerful like it was gonna blow up the world or some sort.
He said the things powerful enough with just 1, RSX chip was put in as a back up for the 2nd Cell. Bad idea.
Strange, there now going back to the 2 Cell Processor thing again in PS4.
garland51
Damn, if it was that good I would no doubt have one in my PC as would many hermits. Unfortunately, 2 Cells =/= good gaming hardware :lol:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sony originally put 2 Cell Processors into the PS3 but then they found it was just too powerful in terms of graphics and CPU power and they had to cut it down to an RSX chip as the graphics chip?
I remember Sony putting 2 CELL PROCESSORS INTO THE PS3 and Kaz said it was way too much power and he also said that with just 1 Cell, Sony could beat Microsoft in graphics and CPU.
It is pretty much true.
They would have used 2 Cell processors if Kaz had not said it was too powerful like it was gonna blow up the world or some sort.
He said the things powerful enough with just 1, RSX chip was put in as a back up for the 2nd Cell. Bad idea.
Strange, there now going back to the 2 Cell Processor thing again in PS4.
garland51
Actually I believe that Sony originally wanted to just put the Cell in the PS3 without a GPU and have the Cell work as both a CPU and GPU. Shortly after they tested it out they realized that they would be MUCH better off with a dedicated GPU. So they rushed over to Nvidia to have them design a chip in a relative hurry to meet the Playstation 3's release date. Nvidia did so and they created the RSX; however the RSX was not that great considering that the previous year's Xbox 360's GPU was stronger than it.
Not really. Though now Sony is stuck with it. Hopefully the next cell processor is going to be vastly more powerful than the current.
DAZZER7
Do you realize that when it came out, for a short time, the cell processor was more powerful than any pc processor? I agree that the next one needs to be vastly more powerful, but you made it seem like the current one wasn't really powerful.
Log in to comment