Cell processor, was it worth it?

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.

Irick_cb

Irrelevant, I know most of this. You stated 100% Nvidia PhysX support, which means GPU accelerated physics.

PS3 does not support GPU physics acceleration and hence is not 100% Nvidia PhysX compatible. Running on SPE's doesn't allow you to rationalize that the PS3 is somehow more Nvidia PhysX compatible than competing consoles, because the term refers to acceleration on Nvidia GPUs and not the CPU.

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.

Irick_cb

Needless to say volumetic effects are an effect, as in a graphical effect and hence aren't relevant to what I was asking.

As for your link I was asking for evidence of Cell utilization that impacts game play in a manner that cannot be done without Cell, a list of games utilizing SPE's and for what isn't answering my question. How does knowing game X utilizes SPE's for physics tell me it is doing something impossible elsewhere?

Now it seems you have made a post edit, so lucky I looked back for updates while writing this. All of your extra links are irrelevant to the question I have been asking; what does IBM Roadrunner, SSL cracking and an interactive ray tracer have to do with my question?

Let me say it again, what games use Cell to improve the game play experience in a manner that cannot be done without Cell? Either answer my question or stop responding; because you are wasting my time.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

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.

Irick_cb

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.

:(

OK I'll put my hand up and say I probably dont know as much as you guys but I am telling it how I see it from a PC gamers perspective. I just dont see the Cell being used that much, that is essentially the point I was making. Laugh at my lack of knowledge by all means, I also take your point about the Cell being used for servers etc, I am curious how much are they used for servers and how much are they used in all computing applications over x86 intel processors?

I mean, if the Cell really is used quite widely then I'll gladly accept it but I don't see where.

No, they should have copied the 360 processor... Added a 4th core and 512KB more L2 cache. Slapped 128-256 MB more of RAM in and a slightly better GPU... And call it a day.

GoW3 will probably the first game to properly utilize the cell.Mr_Splosher

You know, that has been said so many times with the release of each exclusive game on the PS3. I would say they already are properly utilising it, especially with games like KZ2.

OK I'll put my hand up and say I probably dont know as much as you guys but I am telling it how I see it from a PC gamers perspective. I just dont see the Cell being used that much, that is essentially the point I was making. Laugh at my lack of knowledge by all means, I also take your point about the Cell being used for servers etc, I am curious how much are they used for servers and how much are they used in all computing applications over x86 intel processors?

I mean, if the Cell really is used quite widely then I'll gladly accept it but I don't see where.

DAZZER7

It is not used a lot in PC gaming. (read that "at all")

In server systems the Cell has some advantages, especially when handling the sort of calculations that go on behind the scenes of an MMO.

To my knowledge there are a few networks testing this out.

It is truly difficult to explain how new the Cell is. The programs that we are seeing are just starting to take advantage of it, and this is a good thing, for everyone not just the PS3.

The techniques and technologies that will evolve and have evolved from Sony implementing the Cell in a consumer hardware device with a large (relatively) instal base will allow for better documentation in this new wide scale switch to GPGPU (Nvidia's CUDA and the new OpenCL standard.) which means those of us with relatively recent graphics cards will gets boosts in performance.

For that reason alone, i think the cell was worth it.

Thank you for taking this level headedly. I tried to return the favor.

No, they should have copied the 360 processor... Added a 4th core and 512KB more L2 cache. Slapped 128-256 MB more of RAM in and a slightly better GPU... And call it a day.

Truth_Hurts_U

[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

Why copy that's not a smart move that would made ps3 fail . ps3 is ps3 for what it has inside thats why its ps3 i mean would u buy a ps3 if it had the same stuff as 360? no cause that would be throwing away money i mean sure the exclusives but there would be no ponit of the system even being around if it was just slightly betterZain-Midori

Adding a extra core, cache, RAM and a slightly better GPU... Would make it 33% better then 360. That's better then what we are seeing now in games.

There would be no way 360 could play PS3 games either. The GPU's are different and 360 can't read Blu Ray. So, I see no problem.

[QUOTE="Zain-Midori"]Why copy that's not a smart move that would made ps3 fail . ps3 is ps3 for what it has inside thats why its ps3 i mean would u buy a ps3 if it had the same stuff as 360? no cause that would be throwing away money i mean sure the exclusives but there would be no ponit of the system even being around if it was just slightly betterTruth_Hurts_U

Adding a extra core, cache, RAM and a slightly better GPU... Would make it 33% better then 360. That's better then what we are seeing now in games.

There would be no way 360 could play PS3 games either. The GPU's are different and 360 can't read Blu Ray. So, I see no problem.

hmmm i do c ur ponit for it would be easier for devlopers to make games to the ps3 but as a consumer after dropping a couple hundred buck u would want the best of the best not last gen tech ya know? but like i said i do c ur point though blu ray is waaay better holds way more space means more room for developers to make games its a plus its minus new technologies are harder to dev for

[QUOTE="Zain-Midori"]Why copy that's not a smart move that would made ps3 fail . ps3 is ps3 for what it has inside thats why its ps3 i mean would u buy a ps3 if it had the same stuff as 360? no cause that would be throwing away money i mean sure the exclusives but there would be no ponit of the system even being around if it was just slightly betterTruth_Hurts_U

Adding a extra core, cache, RAM and a slightly better GPU... Would make it 33% better then 360. That's better then what we are seeing now in games.

There would be no way 360 could play PS3 games either. The GPU's are different and 360 can't read Blu Ray. So, I see no problem.

[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

[QUOTE="Zain-Midori"]Why copy that's not a smart move that would made ps3 fail . ps3 is ps3 for what it has inside thats why its ps3 i mean would u buy a ps3 if it had the same stuff as 360? no cause that would be throwing away money i mean sure the exclusives but there would be no ponit of the system even being around if it was just slightly betterCwlHeddwyn

Adding a extra core, cache, RAM and a slightly better GPU... Would make it 33% better then 360. That's better then what we are seeing now in games.

There would be no way 360 could play PS3 games either. The GPU's are different and 360 can't read Blu Ray. So, I see no problem.

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

ArmA 2 says hi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KK6Fo3Y0AU&fmt=22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khG8pVEmzO4&fmt=22

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

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.

AnnoyedDragon

Irrelevant, I know most of this. You stated 100% Nvidia PhysX support, which means GPU accelerated physics.

PS3 does not support GPU physics acceleration and hence is not 100% Nvidia PhysX compatible. Running on SPE's doesn't allow you to rationalize that the PS3 is somehow more Nvidia PhysX compatible than competing consoles, because the term refers to acceleration on Nvidia GPUs and not the CPU.

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.

Irick_cb

Needless to say volumetic effects are an effect, as in a graphical effect and hence aren't relevant to what I was asking.

As for your link I was asking for evidence of Cell utilization that impacts game play in a manner that cannot be done without Cell, a list of games utilizing SPE's and for what isn't answering my question. How does knowing game X utilizes SPE's for physics tell me it is doing something impossible elsewhere?

Now it seems you have made a post edit, so lucky I looked back for updates while writing this. All of your extra links are irrelevant to the question I have been asking; what does IBM Roadrunner, SSL cracking and an interactive ray tracer have to do with my question?

Let me say it again, what games use Cell to improve the game play experience in a manner that cannot be done without Cell? Either answer my question or stop responding; because you are wasting my time.

As for the highlighted text, I'd love an answer to this as well, since it was ignored when I asked a similar question earlier. No one can seem to give real world examples because there aren't any. The emotional investment some people have towards the cell processor is almost unfounded.

IMO I think the cell processor was not worth it. I believe they should just have used DVDs and not cared about the cell etc. This would have decreased their price and drastically increased their sales. Also as shown last gen Sony consoles doesn't need to be the most technologically advanced to be the best. All the games on the PS3 like MGS4, KZ2, Uncharted could be done on DVDs with compressed audio etc. anyways.

IMO I think the cell processor was not worth it. I believe they should just have used DVDs and not cared about the cell etc. This would have decreased their price and drastically increased their sales. Also as shown last gen Sony consoles doesn't need to be the most technologically advanced to be the best. All the games on the PS3 like MGS4 could be done on DVDs with compressed audio etc. anyways.

StealthMonkey4

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

IMO I think the cell processor was not worth it. I believe they should just have used DVDs and not cared about the cell etc. This would have decreased their price and drastically increased their sales. Also as shown last gen Sony consoles doesn't need to be the most technologically advanced to be the best. All the games on the PS3 like MGS4 could be done on DVDs with compressed audio etc. anyways.

ZoomZoom2490

Just because Sony blew all of their money on a CPU designed for mathematical calculations and not gaming, then the rest of their money on an overpriced blue light that reads thick pieces of plastic, which contain way too much data for one game, doesn't mean we all have to agree that more expensive = better.

PS3 has good graphics, but they would've been 10 times better if Sony knew how to spend their money intelligently.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

IMO I think the cell processor was not worth it. I believe they should just have used DVDs and not cared about the cell etc. This would have decreased their price and drastically increased their sales. Also as shown last gen Sony consoles doesn't need to be the most technologically advanced to be the best. All the games on the PS3 like MGS4 could be done on DVDs with compressed audio etc. anyways.

ZoomZoom2490

Sorry but I own a PS3 (and play it every day), my PSN ID is StealthMonkey43 and my trophy card is in my sig;). I just think Sony adding cell/blu ray makes their system highly priced and they lose many potential customers.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

Irrelevant, I know most of this. You stated 100% Nvidia PhysX support, which means GPU accelerated physics.

PS3 does not support GPU physics acceleration and hence is not 100% Nvidia PhysX compatible. Running on SPE's doesn't allow you to rationalize that the PS3 is somehow more Nvidia PhysX compatible than competing consoles, because the term refers to acceleration on Nvidia GPUs and not the CPU.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

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.

AnnoyedDragon

Needless to say volumetic effects are an effect, as in a graphical effect and hence aren't relevant to what I was asking.

As for your link I was asking for evidence of Cell utilization that impacts game play in a manner that cannot be done without Cell, a list of games utilizing SPE's and for what isn't answering my question. How does knowing game X utilizes SPE's for physics tell me it is doing something impossible elsewhere?

Now it seems you have made a post edit, so lucky I looked back for updates while writing this. All of your extra links are irrelevant to the question I have been asking; what does IBM Roadrunner, SSL cracking and an interactive ray tracer have to do with my question?

Let me say it again, what games use Cell to improve the game play experience in a manner that cannot be done without Cell? Either answer my question or stop responding; because you are wasting my time.

As for the highlighted text, I'd love an answer to this as well, since it was ignored when I asked a similar question earlier. No one can seem to give real world examples because there aren't any. The emotional investment some people have towards the cell processor is almost unfounded.

Heh, so yesterday T2 is on tv and I watch it for a while. It was on the scene where Miles is talking about the chip they got from the first movie. He says something like, "Scary stuff, radically advanced... It was shattered, didn't work, but it gave us ideas, took us directions, things we would have never thought of..."

Those Terminators in the '92 movie were obviously powered by teh cell. That's teh cell when all its potential is untapped. Teh powa of teh cell.

Heh, so yesterday T2 is on tv and I watch it for a while. It was on the scene where Miles is talking about the chip they got from the first movie. He says something like, "Scary stuff, radically advanced... It was shattered, didn't work, but it gave us ideas, took us directions, things we would have never thought of..."Those Terminators in the '92 movie were obviously powered by teh cell. That's teh cell when all its potential is untapped. Teh powa of teh cell.mr-krinkles

Yeah, the IBM roadrunner is the by far most powerfull supercomputer in the world.

The most obvious example would be Heavenly Sword, at points in the game there are 2000 soldiers on screen. All with self-shadowing, AI, and ragdoll physics. They all interact physically, and they don't just disapear after being slaughtered either, the bodies pile up.

skektek

I saw nothing about Heavenly Sword that couldn't be achieved elsewhere, I saw nothing about it that couldn't have been achieved last generation on the PS2 in fact. Lots of AI enemies on screen isn't anything new, the only aspect that changes is the achievable graphical quality with that many characters. Dynasty Warriors has been doing it for years and more recently Prototype brought lots of on screen characters to all three platforms.

Besides the number of on screen AI characters is a variable thing, it is something that is achievable to a greater or lessor extent on any platform. I'm asking for something that could only be done with Cell, game play that is something that just isn't possible on a traditional architecture CPU.

Yeah, the IBM roadrunner is the by far most powerfull supercomputer in the world.

omgimba

Which of course has zero relevance to a discussion on Cell's application in the PS3.

The most obvious example would be Heavenly Sword, at points in the game there are 2000 soldiers on screen. All with self-shadowing, AI, and ragdoll physics. They all interact physically, and they don't just disapear after being slaughtered either, the bodies pile up.

skektek

Kameo (a launch game) and Viking: Battle for Asgard as many characters on screen at once. Its nothing special this gen dude.

Kameo

Viking

[QUOTE="skektek"]

The most obvious example would be Heavenly Sword, at points in the game there are 2000 soldiers on screen. All with self-shadowing, AI, and ragdoll physics. They all interact physically, and they don't just disapear after being slaughtered either, the bodies pile up.

AnnoyedDragon

I saw nothing about Heavenly Sword that couldn't be achieved elsewhere, I saw nothing about it that couldn't have been achieved last generation on the PS2 in fact. Lots of AI enemies on screen isn't anything new, the only aspect that changes is the achievable graphical quality with that many characters. Dynasty Warriors has been doing it for years and more recently Prototype brought lots of on screen characters to all three platforms.

Besides the number of on screen AI characters is a variable thing, it is something that is achievable to a greater or lessor extent on any platform. I'm asking for something that could only be done with Cell, game play that is something that just isn't possible on a traditional architecture CPU.

Yeah, the IBM roadrunner is the by far most powerfull supercomputer in the world.

omgimba

Which of course has zero relevance to a discussion on Cell's application in the PS3.

Of course you couldn't see it, you are a fanboy. You are entrenched in your illogically derived opinions. I doubt you have even played through Heavenly Sword.

The effect of the Cell is a matter of degree. Its not going to make you see colors you have never seen before or transport you to the 29th dimension. It does what other processors do but it does somethings better. And given the nature of consoles, a static long term platform, the Cell is relatively future proof, to this day a Core i7 can't match the Cell BE's 32bit floating point performance.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

The most obvious example would be Heavenly Sword, at points in the game there are 2000 soldiers on screen. All with self-shadowing, AI, and ragdoll physics. They all interact physically, and they don't just disapear after being slaughtered either, the bodies pile up.

navyguy21

Kameo (a launch game) and Viking: Battle for Asgard as many characters on screen at once. Its nothing special this gen dude.

Kameo

Viking

kameo is a horrible example, every single enemy is a clone, right down to the current walk cycle frame. No individual or squad AI, rag-doll physics, or self shadowing.

Your Viking screens are bullshots.

kameo is a horrible example, every single enemy is a clone, right down to the current walk cycle frame. No individual or squad AI, rag-doll physics, or self shadowing.

Your Viking screens are bullshots.

skektek

Fine, here is a VIDEO of the large battles, and dont lie to me because i have Heavely Sword. But you are too biased to see the truth..........sad really.

ANOTHER in HD

Of course you couldn't see it, you are a fanboy. You are entrenched in your illogically derived opinions. I doubt you have even played through Heavenly Sword.

skektek

Played through? No. Played? Yes.

I got up to the point were I was fighting that knife covered general for the second time before losing interest. The vast majority of scenes were linear paths coated with 10s of enemies, the only scene I recall that could potentially have 2000 was at the beginning; and you could tell they weren't all interactive characters.

The effect of the Cell is a matter of degree. Its not going to make you see colors you have never seen before or transport you to the 29th dimension. It does what other processors do but it does somethings better. And given the nature of consoles, a static long term platform, the Cell is relatively future proof, to this day a Core i7 can't match the Cell BE's 32bit floating point performance.

skektek

What about our previous discussions do you think that theoretical, on paper, application specific performance figure impresses me? We've been through this; it is not an apples to apples comparison. You yourself should know better than to claim Cell is superior to an I7 just because of a floating point figure, Cell is a more specialised processor compared to the I7.

You're the type of person who eats up Sony marketing propaganda charts like this, do you honestly believe these figures? According to Capcom the 360 CPU is equivilent to a dual-core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 at 3.2ghz, but based on your standards it should be running circles around today's Conroes.

Looking at one area of performance never paints the whole picture.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

Irrelevant, I know most of this. You stated 100% Nvidia PhysX support, which means GPU accelerated physics.

PS3 does not support GPU physics acceleration and hence is not 100% Nvidia PhysX compatible. Running on SPE's doesn't allow you to rationalize that the PS3 is somehow more Nvidia PhysX compatible than competing consoles, because the term refers to acceleration on Nvidia GPUs and not the CPU.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

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.

mismajor99

Needless to say volumetic effects are an effect, as in a graphical effect and hence aren't relevant to what I was asking.

As for your link I was asking for evidence of Cell utilization that impacts game play in a manner that cannot be done without Cell, a list of games utilizing SPE's and for what isn't answering my question. How does knowing game X utilizes SPE's for physics tell me it is doing something impossible elsewhere?

Now it seems you have made a post edit, so lucky I looked back for updates while writing this. All of your extra links are irrelevant to the question I have been asking; what does IBM Roadrunner, SSL cracking and an interactive ray tracer have to do with my question?

Let me say it again, what games use Cell to improve the game play experience in a manner that cannot be done without Cell? Either answer my question or stop responding; because you are wasting my time.

As for the highlighted text, I'd love an answer to this as well, since it was ignored when I asked a similar question earlier. No one can seem to give real world examples because there aren't any. The emotional investment some people have towards the cell processor is almost unfounded.

Try not to mention graphics people, as I have stated before that isn't relevant to my question.

Uncharted 2 snipmD-

So to sum up.

-Adaptive animation.

I'm tempted to put this under graphics but I'll address it since it is processing power related.

Dynamic animation being combined with pre done animations was also done in Crysis, enabling character animations to adapt to whichever terrain they happen to be walking on. This wouldn't be saying much except we all know Crysis 2 was announced cross platform; and judging the CryEngine 3 footage this dynamic animation has made it to the 360 version.

-Physics

A scripted building collapse event combined with destructible objects moving about the scenery isn't something limited to Cell. It is an impressive cinematic scene, I saw it during the Sony conference (which granted is designed to impress), however it is not only possible on Cell.

Tell me if I missed a point, you did do a long post.

I think this is more of a matter of not being done on 360 before rather than not being possible, Microsoft doesn't fund exclusive titles specifically built for their platform like Sony does; so suffers from cross platform engines quite a bit. Before Crysis and STALKER Clear Sky someone on here could argue that PC couldn't do volumetric effects or god rays, a game has to be built to do it before it can be proved otherwise.

Try not to mention graphics people, as I have stated before that isn't relevant to my question.

[QUOTE="mD-"]Uncharted 2 snipAnnoyedDragon

So to sum up.

-Adaptive animation.

I'm tempted to put this under graphics but I'll address it since it is processing power related.

Dynamic animation being combined with pre done animations was also done in Crysis, enabling character animations to adapt to whichever terrain they happen to be walking on. This wouldn't be saying much except we all know Crysis 2 was announced cross platform; and judging the CryEngine 3 footage this dynamic animation has made it to the 360 version.

-Physics

A scripted building collapse event combined with destructible objects moving about the scenery isn't something limited to Cell. It is an impressive cinematic scene, I saw it during the Sony conference (which granted is designed to impress), however it is not only possible on Cell.

I think this is more of a matter of not being done on 360 before rather than not being possible, Microsoft doesn't fund exclusive titles specifically built for their platform like Sony does; so suffers from cross platform engines quite a bit. Before Crysis and STALKER Clear Sky someone on here could argue that PC couldn't do volumetric effects or god rays, a game has to be built to do it before it can be proved otherwise.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Of course you couldn't see it, you are a fanboy. You are entrenched in your illogically derived opinions. I doubt you have even played through Heavenly Sword.

AnnoyedDragon

Played through? No. Played? Yes.

I got up to the point were I was fighting that knife covered general for the second time before losing interest. The vast majority of scenes were linear paths coated with 10s of enemies, the only scene I recall that could potentially have 2000 was at the beginning; and you could tell they weren't all interactive characters.

The effect of the Cell is a matter of degree. Its not going to make you see colors you have never seen before or transport you to the 29th dimension. It does what other processors do but it does somethings better. And given the nature of consoles, a static long term platform, the Cell is relatively future proof, to this day a Core i7 can't match the Cell BE's 32bit floating point performance.

skektek

What about our previous discussions do you think that theoretical, on paper, application specific performance figure impresses me? We've been through this; it is not an apples to apples comparison. You yourself should know better than to claim Cell is superior to an I7 just because of a floating point figure, Cell is a more specialised processor compared to the I7.

You're the type of person who eats up Sony marketing propaganda charts like this, do you honestly believe these figures? According to Capcom the 360 CPU is equivilent to a dual-core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 at 3.2ghz, but based on your standards it should be running circles around today's Conroes.

Looking at one area of performance never paints the whole picture.

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

IMO I think the cell processor was not worth it. I believe they should just have used DVDs and not cared about the cell etc. This would have decreased their price and drastically increased their sales. Also as shown last gen Sony consoles doesn't need to be the most technologically advanced to be the best. All the games on the PS3 like MGS4 could be done on DVDs with compressed audio etc. anyways.

StealthMonkey4

Sorry but I own a PS3 (and play it every day), my PSN ID is StealthMonkey43 and my trophy card is in my sig;). I just think Sony adding cell/blu ray makes their system highly priced and they lose many potential customers.

Wow, dude tries to bust on you for not having enough money for a PS3 and you had one anyway...

But you bring up good points. It would be interesting to find out if people bought the PS3 based solely on the hardware inside or for specific games on the console... if it was for the games (which would be logical), then they clearly could have scaled down the hardware to make it less expensive and more than likely sold a lot more.

Try not to mention graphics people, as I have stated before that isn't relevant to my question.

[QUOTE="mD-"]Uncharted 2 snipAnnoyedDragon

So to sum up.

-Adaptive animation.

I'm tempted to put this under graphics but I'll address it since it is processing power related.

Dynamic animation being combined with pre done animations was also done in Crysis, enabling character animations to adapt to whichever terrain they happen to be walking on. This wouldn't be saying much except we all know Crysis 2 was announced cross platform; and judging the CryEngine 3 footage this dynamic animation has made it to the 360 version.

-Physics

A scripted building collapse event combined with destructible objects moving about the scenery isn't something limited to Cell. It is an impressive cinematic scene, I saw it during the Sony conference (which granted is designed to impress), however it is not only possible on Cell.

Tell me if I missed a point, you did do a long post.

I think this is more of a matter of not being done on 360 before rather than not being possible, Microsoft doesn't fund exclusive titles specifically built for their platform like Sony does; so suffers from cross platform engines quite a bit. Before Crysis and STALKER Clear Sky someone on here could argue that PC couldn't do volumetric effects or god rays, a game has to be built to do it before it can be proved otherwise.

The Euphoria engine would be considered as an engine that utilizes adaptive animation, correct?mD-

Based on what I have seen, correct.

I'm telling you guys, only Skynet is gonna be able to untap teh powa of teh cell when it takes over the Earth. Just wait!

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Of course you couldn't see it, you are a fanboy. You are entrenched in your illogically derived opinions. I doubt you have even played through Heavenly Sword.

AnnoyedDragon

Played through? No. Played? Yes.

I got up to the point were I was fighting that knife covered general for the second time before losing interest. The vast majority of scenes were linear paths coated with 10s of enemies, the only scene I recall that could potentially have 2000 was at the beginning; and you could tell they weren't all interactive characters.

The effect of the Cell is a matter of degree. Its not going to make you see colors you have never seen before or transport you to the 29th dimension. It does what other processors do but it does somethings better. And given the nature of consoles, a static long term platform, the Cell is relatively future proof, to this day a Core i7 can't match the Cell BE's 32bit floating point performance.

skektek

What about our previous discussions do you think that theoretical, on paper, application specific performance figure impresses me? We've been through this; it is not an apples to apples comparison. You yourself should know better than to claim Cell is superior to an I7 just because of a floating point figure, Cell is a more specialised processor compared to the I7.

You're the type of person who eats up Sony marketing propaganda charts like this, do you honestly believe these figures? According to Capcom the 360 CPU is equivilent to a dual-core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 at 3.2ghz, but based on your standards it should be running circles around today's Conroes.

Looking at one area of performance never paints the whole picture.

You missed the Raven King fight, the beginning of the game was just a prelude to the final battle.

Don't be vain, I'm not here to impress you. And stop with the stawmen. I never said the Cell was superior to the Core i7, I said the Cell was superior in one area.

I posted the theoretical peaks of each processor from IBM/Sony/Toshiba and Intel.

I haven't seen that particular chart before but it looks about right for measured performance. Don't blame me if the numbers don't line up with your preconceived ideas.

Why do you keep throwing around "application specific" like it is derogatory 4 letter word? Guess what? Consoles, super computers, TVs, accelerators, etc (all the devices the Cell was designed for and is used in) are all "application specific".

I'm beginning to think that you are either a) trolling or b) intentionally obtuse.

You missed the Raven King fight, the beginning of the game was just a prelude to the final battle.

Don't be vain, I'm not here to impress you. And stop with the stawmen. I never said the Cell was superior to the Core i7, I said the Cell was superior in one area.

I posted the theoretical peaks of each processor from IBM/Sony/Toshiba and Intel.

I haven't seen that particular chart before but it looks about right for measured performance. Don't blame me if the numbers don't line up with your preconceived ideas.

Why do you keep throwing around "application specific" like it is derogatory 4 letter word? Guess what? Consoles, super computers, TVs, accelerators, etc (all the devices the Cell was designed for and is used in) are all "application specific".

I'm beginning to think that you are either a) trolling or b) intentionally obtuse.

skektek

I came to the same conclusion, which is why i started ignoring him.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Played through? No. Played? Yes.

I got up to the point were I was fighting that knife covered general for the second time before losing interest. The vast majority of scenes were linear paths coated with 10s of enemies, the only scene I recall that could potentially have 2000 was at the beginning; and you could tell they weren't all interactive characters.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

The effect of the Cell is a matter of degree. Its not going to make you see colors you have never seen before or transport you to the 29th dimension. It does what other processors do but it does somethings better. And given the nature of consoles, a static long term platform, the Cell is relatively future proof, to this day a Core i7 can't match the Cell BE's 32bit floating point performance.

skektek

What about our previous discussions do you think that theoretical, on paper, application specific performance figure impresses me? We've been through this; it is not an apples to apples comparison. You yourself should know better than to claim Cell is superior to an I7 just because of a floating point figure, Cell is a more specialised processor compared to the I7.

You're the type of person who eats up Sony marketing propaganda charts like this, do you honestly believe these figures? According to Capcom the 360 CPU is equivilent to a dual-core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 at 3.2ghz, but based on your standards it should be running circles around today's Conroes.

Looking at one area of performance never paints the whole picture.

You missed the Raven King fight, the beginning of the game was just a prelude to the final battle.

Don't be vain, I'm not here to impress you. And stop with the stawmen. I never said the Cell was superior to the Core i7, I said the Cell was superior in one area.

I posted the theoretical peaks of each processor from IBM/Sony/Toshiba and Intel.

I haven't seen that particular chart before but it looks about right for measured performance. Don't blame me if the numbers don't line up with your preconceived ideas.

Why do you keep throwing around "application specific" like it is derogatory 4 letter word? Guess what? Consoles, super computers, TVs, accelerators, etc (all the devices the Cell was designed for and is used in) are all "application specific".

I'm beginning to think that you are either a) trolling or b) intentionally obtuse.

edit: if you've read anything on sony and the ps4 lately basicly they agree, they aren't going overboard and they are trying to keep costs down, ps4 is going to be a upgraded ps3.

I think the point he's trying to make is that the CELL isn't standing out in any way, because it really isn't, they would have been able to do it better if they just put it in as a co-processor to enhance the graphics when 360 is $200 dollars less and has comparable graphics still. There is nothing about the ps3 that is screaming cannot be done any where else, its a small step in front of 360 in some areas, and 2 steps back in others.

edit: if you've read anything on sony and the ps4 lately basicly they agree, they aren't going overboard and they are trying to keep costs down, ps4 is going to be a upgraded ps3.

savagetwinkie

He failed horribly at defending the point you described, considering he rejected PhysX compliance as something that could not be done on the PS3 without the cell. He rejected the ridiculously good Cell optimized Havok engine used in HR end generally discounting anything that went against his, apparently very narrow definition of improving the gaming experience on the PS3.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

I think the point he's trying to make is that the CELL isn't standing out in any way, because it really isn't, they would have been able to do it better if they just put it in as a co-processor to enhance the graphics when 360 is $200 dollars less and has comparable graphics still. There is nothing about the ps3 that is screaming cannot be done any where else, its a small step in front of 360 in some areas, and 2 steps back in others.

edit: if you've read anything on sony and the ps4 lately basicly they agree, they aren't going overboard and they are trying to keep costs down, ps4 is going to be a upgraded ps3.

Irick_cb

He failed horribly at defending the point you described, considering he rejected PhysX compliance as something that could not be done on the PS3 without the cell. He rejected the ridiculously good Cell optimized Havok engine used in HR end generally discounting anything that went against his, apparently very narrow definition of improving the gaming experience on the PS3.

As for things that sony does and people saying that it cannot be done one the 360, if you havn't really noticed this yet, but most of M$'s exclusives have a more arcade feel to them, sony has a more cinematic feel to them, its mainly design choices not hardware that really seperate the type of games on both consoles.

edit: on a total side note, any one else loosing returns to make paragraphs using iexplorer 8?