Cell processor, was it worth it?

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

The Cell does not run Windows.

DAZZER7

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

Do you see the redundancy in your statement?

Do you see the redundancy in your statement?

Irick_cb

No I dont.

No I dont.

DAZZER7

Look closely at your data stream.

The parity checks.

They are there.

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

[QUOTE="skektek"].The RSX was awesome for its time and has almost ~20% more pixel shading power than the Xenos.delta3074

You made that up. Truly and fully. You combined your lack of knowlage of USA (which means they can run either vertex or per pixel shaders) with the hype of DX 11 (lol, OpenGL has had tessellation since 1990s) and then assert a lack of research.

skektek, you're wrong too, the RSX was the weaker of the two.

Sorry.

It's as simple as this if Song had put a standard processor and Cd Rom in the PS3 they would be dominating this gen again. They would also not be losing money hand over fist. Of course the Cell was not worth it.Firelore29

You humans and your narrow definitions of worth. This is why it will be so easy for me to take over as your lord and master.

OBEY: Because Freedom comes at too high a price.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

[QUOTE="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...

DAZZER7

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.

Lol the examples i have actually highlighed here are really IT technolog and actually will affect the IT industry especially as IBM is one of the biggest in this area.Also the Cell is used in some HDTV's im sure for images and PIP systems aswell as handling things like upscaling and all that.The only one that isnt bold really is only because Windows is designed for mainly x86 processor architecture , it could be ported and tweaked to run on Cell if they wished.

But Linux is used frequently in server side systems cause its not as much of a power hog aswell im sure.

Lol the examples i have actually highlighed here are really IT technolog and actually will affect the IT industry especially as IBM is one of the biggest in this area.Also the Cell is used in some HDTV's im sure for images and PIP systems aswell as handling things like upscaling and all that.The only one that isnt bold really is only because Windows is designed for mainly x86 processor architecture , it could be ported and tweaked to run on Cell if they wished.

But Linux is used frequently in server side systems cause its not as much of a power hog aswell im sure.

razgriz_101

Why did you have to ruin it for me? I was having so much fun dismissing the views presented as malformed based on bias or misinformation.

But here you are with relevant information and stating points that are not made up.

:(

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="skektek"].The RSX was awesome for its time and has almost ~20% more pixel shading power than the Xenos.Irick_cb

You made that up. Truly and fully. You combined your lack of knowlage of USA (which means they can run either vertex or per pixel shaders) with the hype of DX 11 (lol, OpenGL has had tessellation since 1990s) and then assert a lack of research.

skektek, you're wrong too, the RSX was the weaker of the two.

Sorry.

Xenos: 48 billion shader operations per second (vertex or pixel)

RSX total: 74.8 billion shader operations per second partitioned in a 3:1 ratio pixel vs vertex.

RSX vertex shader: 18.7 billion operations per second

RSX pixel shader: 56.1 billion operations per second

The RSX, while being weaker in vertex operations, is stronger in raw pixel shader performance.

Xenos: 48 billion shader operations per second (vertex or pixel)

RSX total: 74.8 billion shader operations per second partitioned in a 3:1 ratio pixel vs vertex.

RSX vertex shader: 18.7 billion operations per second

RSX pixel shader: 56.1 billion operations per second

The RSX, while being weaker in vertex operations, is stronger in raw pixel shader performance.

skektek

Eeee... sorry, i did my RSX Calculation based on a 400mhz clock ^^;

So, on paper, stronger, but in practice, less flexable compared to the USA.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Xenos: 48 billion shader operations per second (vertex or pixel)

RSX total: 74.8 billion shader operations per second partitioned in a 3:1 ratio pixel vs vertex.

RSX vertex shader: 18.7 billion operations per second

RSX pixel shader: 56.1 billion operations per second

The RSX, while being weaker in vertex operations, is stronger in raw pixel shader performance.

Irick_cb

Eeee... sorry, i did my RSX Calculation based on a 400mhz clock ^^;

So, on paper, stronger, but in practice, less flexable compared to the USA.

Agreed. There can be situations in the RSX where there is a queue of vertex operations while pixel shaders are idle.

skektek

This is why i strongly support deferred shading. I see to many "traditional" engines with redundant vertex transformations making their way to the PS3. (I'm looking at you Soul Caliber 4)

*edit*

Okay, i was a little hard on traditional engines. Deferred can screw up too. Look at GTA:4, not so good on the PS3 despite the PS3 being the perfect system for the method.

It really just comes down to how much effort the devs put into the title.

Any PC dual-core CPU is more powerful than Cell.

Any PC dual-core CPU is more powerful than Cell.

IgGy621985

Wrong, fluffy.

More flexible, yes.

Powerful, No.

Go look at numbers, you seem to like them given your nick.

*edit*

and let me clarify, i mean flexible in terms of cache usage and coprosessor assisted operations. SPEs are turing complete.

in terms of gaming, no. it resulted in a higher than expected cost at launch, a compromise GPU RSX because they couldn't do what they originally wanted, and difficult development that left its first year with very little. only after about 1.5 years did developers start getting out games of the quality we expected and thats still mostly 1st party. multiplats still look the same or better on 360.Ontain

Other then Farcry 2.

Why the hell does Farcry 2 look better on the PS3 anyway? Weird stuff going on with shadows on the 360.

nopeNSR34GTR

http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/result-browser/top10---flops.php

Each SPE on the PS3 theoreticly gives 25.6 GFLOPS (2560mflops) of singer precision processing power, giving the PS3 a _theoretical_ peak of over .2 TF, well over even the i7 in benchmarking. In actual performance it's more near the .2TF then above it, still allowing it to beat out the best offerings of the PC even 3 years later in this sort of math.

Fun fact, your CPU, at max overclock, only hits ~.04 TFs. (you beat the theoretic output of one SPE, good job PC.)

Careful with that comment on the PC freindly bit... Microsoft's offerings are allways buggy and craptatstic there. Red Ring of Death makes sense suddenly!Use a MAC and you'll sleep better. But that's another topic entirely.

Careful with that comment on the PC freindly bit... Microsoft's offerings are allways buggy and craptatstic there. Red Ring of Death makes sense suddenly!Use a MAC and you'll sleep better. But that's another topic entirely.

anarchist4eva

****.

You said Mac.

We're doomed.

*Edited from my macbook pro. Drink the Koolaid, it is shiny and eco-friendly. You like shiny, and the environment, don't you?*

The knowledge of microprocessors of most people in this thread is woeful, who cares what Sony hyped it could "Theoretically" do, the proof in in the application, and that fact remains that in 4 years we have yet to see any sort of usage of the Cell on Gaming PC's. It took a hell of a short time for the core 2 architecture to become wildly popular, if this was so superior why not use it for home gaming outside the PS3? I've gone into the history of both the Xeon and the Cell time and time again, BOTH are made based on the old IBM power PC model (which the mac pro's abandoned outright in 2006) and so are lagging in terms of architecture when compared to the Newer Intel CPUs, Apple don't switch provider wholesale for no reason.

[QUOTE="NSR34GTR"]nopeIrick_cb

http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/result-browser/top10---flops.php

Each SPE on the PS3 theoreticly gives 25.6 GFLOPS (2560mflops) of singer precision processing power, giving the PS3 a _theoretical_ peak of over .2 TF, well over even the i7 in benchmarking. In actual performance it's more near the .2TF then above it, still allowing it to beat out the best offerings of the PC even 3 years later in this sort of math.

Fun fact, your CPU, at max overclock, only hits ~.04 TFs. (you beat the theoretic output of one SPE, good job PC.)

The knowledge of microprocessors of most people in this thread is woeful, who cares what Sony hyped it could "Theoretically" do, the proof in in the application, and that fact remains that in 4 years we have yet to see any sort of usage of the Cell on Gaming PC's. It took a hell of a short time for the core 2 architecture to become wildly popular, if this was so superior why not use it for home gaming outside the PS3? I've gone into the history of both the Xeon and the Cell time and time again, BOTH are made based on the old IBM power PC model (which the mac pro's abandoned outright in 2006) and so are lagging in terms of architecture when compared to the Newer Intel CPUs, Apple don't switch provider wholesale for no reason.

BoloTheGreat

Your "not used on a gaming PC" argument is invalidated by the following previous post. (Not to mention the PPU by Agiea, but i'll skip that for now as it is just architectural similarities)

The Cell does not run Windows.

Irick_cb

And "Outdated PPC"? PPC has been in active development as it is IBM's money maker. Every console this generation is using it. M$ don't switch processor technologies for no reason. It has far surpased the G4/5 based hardware you are citing. Apple switched for two main reasons: Cost, and IBM's inability to make G5 based laptops.

And "in application" the cell is still the top performing chip used in scientific computation. See previous posts for links.

[QUOTE="anarchist4eva"]

Careful with that comment on the PC freindly bit... Microsoft's offerings are allways buggy and craptatstic there. Red Ring of Death makes sense suddenly!Use a MAC and you'll sleep better. But that's another topic entirely.

Irick_cb

****.

You said Mac.

We're doomed.

*Edited from my macbook pro. Drink the Koolaid, it is shiny and eco-friendly. You like shiny, and the environment, don't you?*

Let's talk real world, not theory. The Cell in the PS3 doesn't have apps/games that make it the prime computational machine to have. Cell on it's own isn't even on the market for consumption as the industry has failed to embrace it. More importantly, with games being made more specifically to take advantage of GPU's, the day of needing overpowered/underutilized CPU's is over. It's easier for Developers. mismajor99

Slow down there buddy, i'm as big of an endorser of CUDA and OpenCL as Kronos group, but you are missing my point.

The Cell popularised a lot of the techniques used in GPGPU programing and design and rekendled scientific investment in cheep, powerful consumer hardware.

I am saying the Cell brought this change, not that it is nessisary for anything. Just that it was worth it.

Dell is actually a more environmentally friendly company from what i've read. they had recycling programs in place years before apple.Ontain

I couldn't care less about the enviromently friendly aspect. It was a joke.

All your talking is making my brain hurt.

All your talking is making my brain hurt.

Bewareoffalling

I'm so sorry.

Here's a question for you.

Has Cell actually been applied for anything in games that simply couldn't have been done with a more powerful GPU? I haven't seen any high profile PS3 exclusives that have demonstrated something supposedly not possible on the competitors platform outside of graphics, so perhaps someone would like to inform me regarding that?

Whenever we have a graphics Vs game play thread people always vote for the game play, but with Cell I get the impression all people want and expect from it is more eye candy. You look at PS3's high rated, supposedly Cell utilizing, exclusives like MGS4 and KZ2 and do you actually see anything that impacts the game play experience that couldn't be done elsewhere?

When I first saw Cell I thought they were going to use it for high end physics or AI, do stuff that a traditional CPU would struggle with, just being an extension on the GPUs job didn't enter my mind back in 2005.

look at uncharted 2 and tell me what you think?

ZoomZoom2490

[QUOTE="Bewareoffalling"]

All your talking is making my brain hurt.

Irick_cb

I'm so sorry.

The knowledge of microprocessors of most people in this thread is woeful, who cares what Sony hyped it could "Theoretically" do, the proof in in the application, and that fact remains that in 4 years we have yet to see any sort of usage of the Cell on Gaming PC's. It took a hell of a short time for the core 2 architecture to become wildly popular, if this was so superior why not use it for home gaming outside the PS3? I've gone into the history of both the Xeon and the Cell time and time again, BOTH are made based on the old IBM power PC model (which the mac pro's abandoned outright in 2006) and so are lagging in terms of architecture when compared to the Newer Intel CPUs, Apple don't switch provider wholesale for no reason.

BoloTheGreat

yes i believe it has been used in games that couldn't have been done by a more powerful GPU. Outside of the fact the PS3 was better then high end gaming rigs at the time of release, the cell has the ability to do a wider set of calculations then a GPU, enabling such effects as volumetric objects/lighting, %100 nVida PhysX compatibility, and the ability to instantly grow spoons out of your ears.

Traditional CPUs _do_ struggle with what the Cell is doing now. So what if it is being used for graphics? That should be a testament to just how innovative the design is.

But that's not enough, and i know why it's not enough.

God bless the internet.

[QUOTE="Bewareoffalling"][QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

[QUOTE="Bewareoffalling"]

All your talking is making my brain hurt.

AnnoyedDragon

I'm so sorry.

Shhhh, it will all be okay, just avoid these keywords in OPs. "Cell processor" "PS3" "" and "Ninjas vs Pirates."

Here's a question for you.

Has Cell actually been applied for anything in games that simply couldn't have been done with a more powerful GPU? I haven't seen any high profile PS3 exclusives that have demonstrated something supposedly not possible on the competitors platform outside of graphics, so perhaps someone would like to inform me regarding that?

Whenever we have a graphics Vs game play thread people always vote for the game play, but with Cell I get the impression all people want and expect from it is more eye candy. You look at PS3's high rated, supposedly Cell utilizing, exclusives like MGS4 and KZ2 and do you actually see anything that impacts the game play experience that couldn't be done elsewhere?

When I first saw Cell I thought they were going to use it for high end physics or AI, do stuff that a traditional CPU would struggle with, just being an extension on the GPUs job didn't enter my mind back in 2005.

AnnoyedDragon

Well i would say we have only seen slight graphical upgrades over the 360, people still squabble and fight over them they are so very minute in many cases. We have seen almost NO big advantages on any front from the cell, a slight (debatable) graphical edge in exclusive games is not much to show for the thing. Especially when you consider the higher time and resources put into these mostly First Party games, Games like GT5 have yet to be released and KZ2/MGS4 took far beyond what many developers could afford in both time, effort and cash. I just don't see how this power of latency model was decide upon, it's a very hard machine to code for. BoloTheGreat

Guerilla games says developers need to stop thinking in this way. They said trying to optimise the code from the mindset of "SPEs are so weak except for x" hindered them more then when they just treated them like general purpouse hardware.

[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?dsmccracken

Both.... but blue ray is nice to have... the cell is usless and a wast

Both.... but blue ray is nice to have... the cell is usless and a wast

Addict187

there are 8 pages man. Even for me it is dificult to ramble on to this extent.

I disagree with your statment my fine sir but wish to part ways.

It's good at cruching numbers but we have yet to see it produce anything another system couldn't basically do.

The only problem that was wrong with the cell processor was that it was expensive technology its why ps3's price was so high that on top of blu ray drive.

That is the only flaw by fact that affected the ps3 sales because of u cannot lie if ps3 waqsa the price of the wii iam pretty sure all of the ps3 haters would be flocking to the system.

People say that cell processor and blu ray is crap...hmmm i wonder if those people who say that do even half of them know what it truly is?

The blu ray disc is trult next genaration technology now the comparison's iam bout to do are all facts ok ?

The ps3's blu ray disc so far can hold up to 50 gigs of space and is scratch proof unless u take a knife 2 it lol

now over time iam sure that will increase even more who knows maybe 75 hell 100 gigs who knows

and with this all this space in ps3 blu ray game developers can create either a long game with great graphics or a short graphics with fantasic graphics take 2 games as killzone 2 short game with mind blowing visuals and physics , metal gear solid 4 a long game *with lotta cut scenes lol* and even so mgs4 still looked great.

now 360 runs on hd dvd's as we know after the so called format wars hd dvd is a dead format it can only hold 8 gigs of data which will limit how much devlopers can do microsoft made a huge mistake saying therer never gonna use blu ray on their systems * unless they create their own format u never know* now on top of its small amount it scratches so effing easily on top of 360 eating discs up ive heard from many people that some times they would take their game disc out of their 360 and it would have a long arc like scratch going along the disc . thats how microsoft has always been they rush their cheaply made products

winner in my opinion the blu ray disc hold way more space and does not get scratches.....unless u take a knife to it lol.

Now the ps3's cpu twice as fast as the 360's allowing it to calculate and create even more realistic physics in gaming possible right now. i mean look at the mgs4 * lol last time i say this game dont wanna spam it like microsoft is milking the life outta halo lol* mgs4 will never be able to run on 360 as for the system cannot handle the game , 360 cannot even handle flower * most relaxing game ever* a casual mini game! due to its crappy hardware now microsoft would have took its time on its system they woulnt have put there system behind in technology*no people iam not talking about sales its common sense that if a system is released a year b4 it will have more sales and more games not to metion people rebuying the same system due to rrod and other hardware issues * theres more i would like to say but i would be off topic that will all be saved for another thread . now all i have said are pure facts solid facts not opinions* i love u google lol* and should 360 even be considered a next gen system???

yes i believe it has been used in games that couldn't have been done by a more powerful GPU.

Irick_cb

Then feel free to list such games and what they did so that I can look at this claim myself. Keep in mine I am referring to none graphic specific applications of Cell, game play impacting game designs that could only be done on Cell.

Outside of the fact the PS3 was better then high end gaming rigs at the time of release, the cell has the ability to do a wider set of calculations then a GPU, enabling such effects as volumetric objects/lighting, %100 nVida PhysX compatibility, and the ability to instantly grow spoons out of your ears.

Irick_cb

The high end gaming PC at the time of the PS3's launch was equipped with a Conroe dual core, 2GB+ of memory and a 8800 GTS. So no, PS3 was not more powerful than a high end PC at the time of release.

These "only Cell capable" effects like volumetic objects/lighting have been done on PC GPUs before, both exist in Crysis and STALKER CS for example. 100% Nvidia PhysX compatibility is just an outright lie by the way, PhysX on PS3 runs on the CPU just like 360, no console this generation has a programmable GPU interface like CUDA or CTM.

Traditional CPUs _do_ struggle with what the Cell is doing now. So what if it is being used for graphics? That should be a testament to just how innovative the design is.

But that's not enough, and i know why it's not enough.

God bless the internet.

Irick_cb

And Cell would struggle with what traditional CPUs can do, it's called application specific performance. Cell Vs traditional CPUs is not an apples to apples comparison, people love to highlight specific areas of performance and declare Cell superior; while ignoring that is a limited look at the full range of tasks that CPUs are expected to do.

You ask why does it matter if it is mostly being used for graphics? How about if they are mostly going to use it for that; wouldn't PS3 have been better off with a better GPU and avoided this whole Cell utilization problem?

I quoted him, this is all you need to know.

AnnoyedDragon

PhysiX is a Physics Library. Remember a while back when i was responding to that PC gamer and said (Aside from the Agiea PPU, but that is just an ARCHITECTURAL SIMILARITY) Well, that's why it's 100% compatible. PhysX was not Nvidia's baby always, and the SPEs are like superclocked versions of the PPU card that was initially released.

As for volumetric effects, i point to you guessed it, KZ2.

Non graphical use

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7598043#post759804

sort through it yourself.

And my point, 300 times over, is the Cell was a worthy investment and brought a lot to the table both as a consept and pice of hardware.

Argueing this is foolish.

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/110954

http://dl.alphaworks.ibm.com/technologies/irt/irt_readme.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner

Good day

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

Then feel free to list such games and what they did so that I can look at this claim myself. Keep in mine I am referring to none graphic specific applications of Cell, game play impacting game designs that could only be done on Cell.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

Outside of the fact the PS3 was better then high end gaming rigs at the time of release, the cell has the ability to do a wider set of calculations then a GPU, enabling such effects as volumetric objects/lighting, %100 nVida PhysX compatibility, and the ability to instantly grow spoons out of your ears.

AnnoyedDragon

The high end gaming PC at the time of the PS3's launch was equipped with a Conroe dual core, 2GB+ of memory and a 8800 GTS. So no, PS3 was not more powerful than a high end PC at the time of release.

These "only Cell capable" effects like volumetic objects/lighting have been done on PC GPUs before, both exist in Crysis and STALKER CS for example. 100% Nvidia PhysX compatibility is just an outright lie by the way, PhysX on PS3 runs on the CPU just like 360, no console this generation has a programmable GPU interface like CUDA or CTM.

Traditional CPUs _do_ struggle with what the Cell is doing now. So what if it is being used for graphics? That should be a testament to just how innovative the design is.

But that's not enough, and i know why it's not enough.

God bless the internet.

Irick_cb

And Cell would struggle with what traditional CPUs can do, it's called application specific performance. Cell Vs traditional CPUs is not an apples to apples comparison, people love to highlight specific areas of performance and declare Cell superior; while ignoring that is a limited look at the full range of tasks that CPUs are expected to do.

You ask why does it matter if it is mostly being used for graphics? How about if they are mostly going to use it for that; wouldn't PS3 have been better off with a better GPU and avoided this whole Cell utilization problem?

Few years since launch, is the cell processor proving its worth?

teh_cell