Cell processor, was it worth it?

[QUOTE="garland51"]

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.

EXLINK

The RSX was awesome for its time and has almost ~20% more pixel shading power than the Xenos.

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

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[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.skektek

Not the Cell in the PS3 wasn't.

In floating point performance it was.

Higher than what the high end quads of the time...the C2Qs the QX9xx? the Cell in the PS3?

it just kills devs 1 at a time and says f the consumers

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.

macca404

The Playstation 3 probably wouldn've shipped at $400-500 instead of $500-600 and would probably still have Playstation 2 backwards compatablity....but no I don't think the Cell was worth it, if anything it is making it harder for developers to port and code games on the Playstation 3.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Not the Cell in the PS3 wasn't.

DAZZER7

In floating point performance it was.

Higher than what the high end quads of the time...the C2Qs the QX9xx? the Cell in the PS3?

Cell? Worth it.

The source of Sony's money problems is teh blu ray.

I think it's still too early to tell. The real power from what I read is it's ability to perform with the SPUs and once developers start utilizing that,which we've already started to see with some really amazing titleslike Killzone and Uncharted.I think IBM is an amazing company, since they have something to do withthe processorthat's in each current gen console.They are also using the cell processor in their Bravia lineup of LCD's as well. That swayed my purchase for sure, 46 1080p BraviaLCD looks amazing with Blu-rays @ 24 fps.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Higher than what the high end quads of the time...the C2Qs the QX9xx? the Cell in the PS3?

skektek

Wasn't the Kentsfield XE (65nm quad conroe) released Nov 2nd 06? PS3 launched Nov 11th 06, making the quad core conroe's available before the PS3 Cell hit the market.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Higher than what the high end quads of the time...the C2Qs the QX9xx? the Cell in the PS3?

AnnoyedDragon

Wasn't the Kentsfield XE (65nm quad conroe) released Nov 2nd 06? PS3 launched Nov 11th 06, making the quad core conroe's available before the PS3 Cell hit the market.

The Cell was being used in medical imaging machines before the PS3 was released.

eh, well it brought us Uncharted 2 and MGS4 so yes.

i would be very surprised if anybody here had any real technical knowledge of the cell,i have read many article about the cell BE and it is a very complex technology . so imho the best way to decide if the cell is worth all the effort sony and first party dev put in this technology is by the game they produce by that i mean exclusive .and if you are not impress (not even a ljttle bit ) by this year E3 sony lineup ,gow3 U2 mod nation ratchet GT5 and game already on the market like killzone 2 infamous ,than you are very difficult to please and you most buy very few games each generation.legol1

eh, well it brought us Uncharted 2 and MGS4 so yes.

mD-

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]

[QUOTE="garland51"]

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.

skektek

The RSX was awesome for its time and has almost ~20% more pixel shading power than the Xenos.

[QUOTE="mD-"]

eh, well it brought us Uncharted 2 and MGS4 so yes.

navyguy21

The Cell was being used in medical imaging machines before the PS3 was released.

skektek

Wasn't the argument that Cell offered the highest performance available for a gaming machine? The thread is about whether Cell was worth it for the PS3, what relevance does a medical machine have? It's like talking about Cells application in super computers, they are irrelevant to the System Wars and the PS3.

Even if you consider that I'm right we are just talking a couple of days anyway, does Cell being first out really matter that much? It's certainly not relevant to Cell's worth today, which is what this thread is asking.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="EXLINK"] 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.

savagetwinkie

The RSX was awesome for its time and has almost ~20% more pixel shading power than the Xenos.

[QUOTE="mD-"]

eh, well it brought us Uncharted 2 and MGS4 so yes.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]I believe the original formula for the PS3 was 4 Cells and no GPU. The obvious drawbacks of that design vs the final design were excessive power consumption, heat dissipation, complexity, and cost.

The RSX was awesome for its time and has almost ~20% more pixel shading power than the Xenos.

skektek

edit: why do you think that nvidia and ati both moved in this direction with desktop gpus, they all have that unified pixel/vertex pipelines now,

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="mD-"]

eh, well it brought us Uncharted 2 and MGS4 so yes.

mD-

[QUOTE="skektek"]

The Cell was being used in medical imaging machines before the PS3 was released.

AnnoyedDragon

Wasn't the argument that Cell offered the highest performance available for a gaming machine? The thread is about whether Cell was worth it for the PS3, what relevance does a medical machine have? It's like talking about Cells application in super computers, they are irrelevant to the System Wars and the PS3.

Even if you consider that I'm right we are just talking a couple of days anyway, does Cell being first out really matter that much? It's certainly not relevant to Cell's worth today, which is what this thread is asking.

32-bit theoretical peak performance

Cell BE: 256 GFLOPS

Intel QX6700: 85 GFLOPS

Core i7: 140 GFLOPS

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] is that why most dev's seem to agree that 360 handles shaders better? xenos is actually a bit better then the rsx. its not excessive power that they had a problem with, its that the cell alone can't do everything a gpu can, so they needed one to be able to do all the graphics today's games need.

savagetwinkie

edit: why do you think that nvidia and ati both moved in this direction with desktop gpus, they all have that unified pixel/vertex pipelines now,

You seem to be parroting this "efficiency" mantra, but do you understand it?

Unified Shaders allow for more flexibility, and yes, it certain situations more efficiency. However there is a tradeoff in raw performance. you should read this.

Don't be dense. In an industry where performance doubles every 18 months a 12 month difference in release times is very relevent.

32-bit theoretical peak performance

Cell BE: 256 GFLOPS

Intel QX6700: 85 GFLOPS

Core i7: 140 GFLOPS

skektek

Oh here we go, the GFLOP wars rears its ugly head again.

I know from previous experience talking with you that you are a Cell advocate, therefore any legitimate criticism gets rationalized around in an effort to protect the thing you idolize. So saying that I know you are just going to disregard what I am about to say, but I'll say it anyway.

By the time Cell gets anywhere near that application specific performance figure, assuming it is real and not just some misleading lie like RSX's 1.8 TFLOP figure, it's not going to matter because by then the standard gaming PC is going to be running circles around it. Most of Cell gets utilized for GPU work anyway, so arguably that is already happening with a combination of a modern CPU and GPU.

You go ahead and preach the word of Cell, I'm going to go play Prototype at 1680x1050 with 16x AF and 4x AA on my "inferior" traditional architecture CPU and "pitiful" 500 GFLOP GPU.

Yes. it was worth it, it was a triumph.

I'd make note of its huge success.

It is hard to express just how pleased i am

Sony Computer Entertainment:I've been living in my world and playing in theirs since i was 9

For better or even for worse they have defined the face of gameing, but there is no sence delving into old nestalgia. You just keep in mind that they really did great.The floating point operations,the steps in raytraceing, and i i'll think that you'll seethey set the line.

You see, while it (and blue ray) might have hiked up the price of the console more, i'm not even angry.

I think it brought a lot to both the gaming industry and to computer science as a whole, i'm being so sincere right now.

Even though my first PS3 broke and it costed me. Six hundred Dollars.You know how much that i could buy? I blew it all and it hurt me so, But i'm so happy gaming! And now we see results since it's been given time from the Killzone 2 beta they've been raising the line!

I'm so GLaD they did bad, or i'd never get to say i had one of the most under appreciated systems of all time.

Go ahead and mock me... I think i've mad my point quite clear... Go and run to someone elsefor your hardware. Maybe Atari? That was a joke. Haha. FAT CHANCE. Anyway this game is great, it's so realistic and slick.

Look at me, still typing when there is gameing to do Maybe i'll mix things up and play my Playstation 2. But the gameing will be done and i'll have some good fun and hope that this console

stays alive.

I'm freaking sick of replaceing it.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Don't be dense. In an industry where performance doubles every 18 months a 12 month difference in release times is very relevent.

32-bit theoretical peak performance

Cell BE: 256 GFLOPS

Intel QX6700: 85 GFLOPS

Core i7: 140 GFLOPS

AnnoyedDragon

Oh here we go, the GFLOP wars rears its ugly head again.

I know from previous experience talking with you that you are a Cell advocate, therefore any legitimate criticism gets rationalized around in an effort to protect the thing you idolize. So saying that I know you are just going to disregard what I am about to say, but I'll say it anyway.

By the time Cell gets anywhere near that application specific performance figure, assuming it is real and not just some misleading lie like RSX's 1.8 TFLOP figure, it's not going to matter because by then the standard gaming PC is going to be running circles around it. Most of Cell gets utilized for GPU work anyway, so arguably that is already happening with a combination of a modern CPU and GPU.

You go ahead and preach the word of Cell, I'm going to go play Prototype at 1680x1050 with 16x AF and 4x AA on my "inferior" traditional architecture CPU and "pitiful" 500 GFLOP GPU.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Don't be dense. In an industry where performance doubles every 18 months a 12 month difference in release times is very relevent.

32-bit theoretical peak performance

Cell BE: 256 GFLOPS

Intel QX6700: 85 GFLOPS

Core i7: 140 GFLOPS

AnnoyedDragon

Oh here we go, the GFLOP wars rears its ugly head again.

I know from previous experience talking with you that you are a Cell advocate, therefore any legitimate criticism gets rationalized around in an effort to protect the thing you idolize. So saying that I know you are just going to disregard what I am about to say, but I'll say it anyway.

By the time Cell gets anywhere near that application specific performance figure, assuming it is real and not just some misleading lie like RSX's 1.8 TFLOP figure, it's not going to matter because by then the standard gaming PC is going to be running circles around it. Most of Cell gets utilized for GPU work anyway, so arguably that is already happening with a combination of a modern CPU and GPU.

You go ahead and preach the word of Cell, I'm going to go play Prototype at 1680x1050 with 16x AF and 4x AA on my "inferior" traditional architecture CPU and "pitiful" 500 GFLOP GPU.

[QUOTE="mD-"][QUOTE="navyguy21"] So you think 2 games are worth the high development costs to other devs that are NOT first party?? You think those games are worth the long dev cycles for games?? You think those few games are worth getting the games delayed? You think its worth it that devs have to gimp multiplat games because of it?? wow, your standards are low:|

navyguy21

Ok, to make this clear what I said has NOTHING to do with Sony PR. Just common sense and some late understanding. Let me ask you something.

How do you think that these developers were able to pull off some the technical display that they've shown in Uncharted 2? There's no other console game on the market being developed (from what we know of) that combines this display of seamless cinematics to gameplay, character/facial animation, and shear number of objects and physics going on at once on a screen while a user is playing.... If you can find me a video of a game today that does that consistently, show me. There's something that really sets the PS3 apart from the Xbox 360. It's not the GPU because the Xbox 360 has a better GPU (not by a lot though). It's the Cell that's obivously the difference... Sony has bragged about the cell (here is your PR bs..), but they've never went into detail how it does what it does.

It's the developers that sometimes give a little bit of insight:

http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/06/naughty-dog-edge-tools-make-ps3-games-better-than-xbox-360-games/

Sony took a risk and tried to jump ahead with their technology. They did the SAMETHING WITH BLU-RAY in terms of jumping ahead (and they won the format war). Notice a trend? From what I understand, this specialized type of computing IS the future.

How do I know? Intel's roadmap (the leader in the industry for manufacturing CPUs) has processors similar to the cell's design years from now (2015ish) http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3254

What the cell can do is applicable to games too. There's a reason that Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, and MGS4 look different from many other console games. They all have been in developement by Sony's big developers, they all have seamless cinematic to gameplay transitions (not that big of a deal for Killzone 2 since you're in first person view all the time like every FPS), and they all look great. I don't know about you, but it makes perfect sense to me. The only issue here is, that because Sony decided to do this, like you said, it's negative affected other third party developers. Hopefully, they are getting better (I think they are) and will use the FREE development tools (like EDGE) that Sony's first party developers provide in order for these developers to utilize the cell better.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="mD-"] well Killzone 2 too. I'd actually would have preferred if Microsoft decided to implement cell computing into their console because it is the future and allows developers to do a lot, even though it's difficult to work with. If they did do this, we'd see more games similar to killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 in terms of the amount of action that can go on while a user is playing. Sony decided to jump ahead and use future technology. Microsoft did the smart thing and stayed with the good general purpose CPU. I WANT to be seeing games like Kill Zone 2, Infamous because they are more immersive and that's what next gen should bring. I'm tired of games that just push graphics because gameplay, story, presentation, intensity>graphics. I prefer the most cinematic experience while playing. mD-

Ok, to make this clear what I said has NOTHING to do with Sony PR. Just common sense and some late understanding. Let me ask you something.

How do you think that these developers were able to pull off some the technical display that they've shown in Uncharted 2? There's no other console game on the market being developed (from what we know of) that combines this display of seamless cinematics to gameplay, character/facial animation, and shear number of objects and physics going on at once on a screen while a user is playing.... If you can find me a video of a game today that does that consistently, show me. There's something that really sets the PS3 apart from the Xbox 360. It's not the GPU because the Xbox 360 has a better GPU (not by a lot though). It's the Cell that's obivously the difference... Sony has bragged about the cell (here is your PR bs..), but they've never went into detail how it does what it does.

It's the developers that sometimes give a little bit of insight:

http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/06/naughty-dog-edge-tools-make-ps3-games-better-than-xbox-360-games/

Sony took a risk and tried to jump ahead with their technology. They did the SAMETHING WITH BLU-RAY in terms of jumping ahead (and they won the format war). Notice a trend? From what I understand, this specialized type of computing IS the future.

How do I know? Intel's roadmap (the leader in the industry for manufacturing CPUs) has processors similar to the cell's design years from now (2015ish) http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3254

What the cell can do is applicable to games too. There's a reason that Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, and MGS4 look different from many other console games. They all have been in developement by Sony's big developers, they all have seamless cinematic to gameplay transitions (not that big of a deal for Killzone 2 since you're in first person view all the time like every FPS), and they all look great. I don't know about you, but it makes perfect sense to me. The only issue here is, that because Sony decided to do this, like you said, it's negative affected other third party developers. Hopefully, they are getting better (I think they are) and will use the FREE development tools (like EDGE) that Sony's first party developers provide in order for these developers to utilize the cell better.

How am I nagging? Now you're just being straight up immature. W/e

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

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.

macca404

no a pentium 4 would have done much better for much less cost. a single core pentium 4 3/2ghz or athlon 64 3200 are much better than any console cpu but ms took the cheap option and sony to the well don't buy other people's stuff option. [QUOTE="cainetao11"]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?imprezawrx500

Congradulations sir.

You just proved that computer games are GPU bound, not CPU bound.

Here is your free t-shirt and waffle.

no a pentium 4 would have done much better for much less cost. a single core pentium 4 3/2ghz or athlon 64 3200 are much better than any console cpu but ms took the cheap option and sony to the well don't buy other people's stuff option. [QUOTE="cainetao11"]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?imprezawrx500

[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

Ask yourself this: how many other companies do you see changing to Cell processors?

Um yeah... the Cell is a flop.

BluRay, on the other hand, looks like the future of digital entertainment; so I guess it was a good idea to install them in PS3s...

well if there wasn't the cell processor....there wouldn't be a 360 processor either...go figure...

Ask yourself this: how many other companies do you see changing to Cell processors?

Um yeah... the Cell is a flop.

BluRay, on the other hand, looks like the future of digital entertainment; so I guess it was a good idea to install them in PS3s...

trollop_scat

3

Also, the world's faster supercomputer.

O_O

Point plz?

[QUOTE="trollop_scat"]

Ask yourself this: how many other companies do you see changing to Cell processors?

Um yeah... the Cell is a flop.

BluRay, on the other hand, looks like the future of digital entertainment; so I guess it was a good idea to install them in PS3s...

Irick_cb

3

Also, the world's faster supercomputer.

O_O

Point plz?

Look kid, I'm glad you're happy with your PS3 purchase. However, I'm not going to bother arguing the obvious with a die-hard cow. Go hang out alone on PSN or something...

Look kid, I'm glad you're happy with your PS3 purchase. However, I'm not going to bother arguing the obvious with a die-hard cow. Go hang out alone on PSN or something...

trollop_scat

While i respect your opinion i must wholy disagree with your conclusion.

Yours is a standing which can not be answered, for how does one measure success?

How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?

The Cell made it's contributions to science and technology and was also utilized in games. The question was "Cell processor, was it worth it?"

not "Cell processor, did it flop in games."

I have been a fan of IBM for quite a while because of their build quality in an otherwise saturatedly crappy hardware market as well as their support and i continue to respect Lenovo.

Toshiba found some interesting ways to use the technology as well in their consumer electronics.

The Cell helped further intrest in GPGPU due to the simular code optimizations.

These are all impacting changes on my world of technology, what about yours?

[QUOTE="trollop_scat"]

Ask yourself this: how many other companies do you see changing to Cell processors?

Um yeah... the Cell is a flop.

BluRay, on the other hand, looks like the future of digital entertainment; so I guess it was a good idea to install them in PS3s...

Irick_cb

3

Also, the world's faster supercomputer.

O_O

Point plz?

The fastest Supercomputer doesn't use the Cell. O_o

The fastest Supercomputer doesn't use the Cell. O_o

PS3_3DO

It uses a combo Cell B.E./ AMD Opteron Arcutecture

http://www.top500.org/system/details/9707

"Ranking History"

The question was "Cell processor, was it worth it?"

Irick_cb

And I answered it with another question: How many other companies do you see changing to Cell processors?

See, if the Cell was as awesome as it was hyped to be, it would've caught on like wildfire and become the workhorse of countless corporations. But that didn't happen, did it? Why would you say that is? Serioulsy, I'd like to hear your reasoning for this...

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

The question was "Cell processor, was it worth it?"

trollop_scat

And I answered it with another question: How many other companies do you see changing to Cell processors?

See, if the Cell was as awesome as it was hyped to be, it would've caught on like wildfire and become the workhorse of countless corporations. But that didn't happen, did it? Why would you say that is? Serioulsy, I'd like to hear your reasoning for this...

Toshiba uses the Cell technology.

IBM uses the Cell Technology.

Componys that buy the BladeCenter QS22 use the Cell technology.

The PS3 continues to be a cheep bit of kit for Scientific calculation ala yellowdog linux instalations.

The Cell does not run Windows.

for the hell of it, hereis a non PS3 Cell card used in a lot of high end workstations for the benefits of the Cell provides in movie editing, FLOPs, Ect.

You should know, you are the Cell.Floppy_Jim

I do think Sony would have benefited better with a more PC like CPU, would have maybe resulted in a better stream of games and Valve games being better posts likewise with a few games earlier on in its life.

But Cell does have its advantages as its able to do a lot of the graphics stuff aswell and can be especially well implemented in games like Killzone 2.Exclusive games thrive better on the PS3 cause they are able to take more advantage, but this time like last gen Multi-plats have taken a bit of a hit in some cases.

[QUOTE="trollop_scat"]

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

The question was "Cell processor, was it worth it?"

Irick_cb

And I answered it with another question: How many other companies do you see changing to Cell processors?

See, if the Cell was as awesome as it was hyped to be, it would've caught on like wildfire and become the workhorse of countless corporations. But that didn't happen, did it? Why would you say that is? Serioulsy, I'd like to hear your reasoning for this...

Toshiba uses the Cell technology.

IBM uses the Cell Technology.

Componys that buy the BladeCenter QS22 use the Cell technology.

The PS3 continues to be a cheep bit of kit for Scientific calculation ala yellowdog linux instalations.

The Cell does not run Windows.

for the hell of it, hereis a non PS3 Cell card used in a lot of high end workstations for the benefits of the Cell provides in movie editing, FLOPs, Ect.

Considering the entire information technology market, consumer electronics (that require processors) the Cell hasn't really been a big hit.