Cell processor, was it worth it?

well thats my point about the cell, it does a couple things better but its been more trouble then its worth, and considering one of the articles I read about the ps4 they are going to try to compete more directly with nintendo I can see that sony doesn't want to try to compete in the latest and greatest tech field anymore.

It would have been a better co-processor i believe though, if they had made the system = 360 in power then popped that in I think it would have made a Huge difference, but as it stands now its just = 360 except it shines in some areas and then the 360 shines in others.

But both is more like a small glow, not really night and day difference between the too. 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?

Aftermarket edit: i beiive this post deserves readability, and i highlighted good points i will address.

savagetwinkie

Thank you for stating your point.

I don't like sony/MS trying to be the wii, i'd rather see hardware innovation.

The 360 has massive amounts of floating point performance too. It was better then the best at it's time of releace because of it's FPU coprosessors. However, that alone was not innovation. We know (the gaming industry/those who follow it) that gaming and traditional engines are largely driven by these kinds of operations, and microsoft beefed up the performance.

the PS3 beefed it up even more.

And the PS3 gave us a CPU in a very novel (in consumer hardware) construction.

My point is because of the Cell and it's inclusion in the PS3 _we_ (not sony) will end up with more, and thus, it was worth it.

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

First and second party developers, the ones who really take the time to get know the hardware, keep pumping out technically astounding games (each arguably the best in its genre in terms of technical merit) such as Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1+2, LBP, MGS4, KZ with others on the horizon (GOW3, GT5, etc).

I hope the next generation of consoles doesn't take the Wii route. I want to see revolutionary improvements in hardware, not incremental.

[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.

First and second party developers, the ones who really take the time to get know the hardware, keep pumping out technically astounding games (each arguably the best in its genre in terms of technical merit) such as Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1+2, LBP, MGS4, KZ with others on the horizon (GOW3, GT5, etc).

I hope the next generation of consoles doesn't take the Wii route. I want to see revolutionary improvements in hardware, not incremental.

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.

skektek

And yet you repeatedly, consistently, repetitively place emphasis on Cells floating point performance and refer to the I7 as if you believe that one area of performance was only what mattered. I have spoken with you in the past regarding it being application specific performance, but you seemed to keep pushing it as if it did say something about overall performance. You may have not specifically stated Cell was superior; but you haven't half given off that impression everywhere I see you. I am judging you by your actions, not what you are saying you weren't claiming right now.

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.

skektek

The chart comes from the very first Sony PS3 conference in 2005, the same conference that hyped people into thinking PS3 was a 2 TFLOP super computer.

As a Cell advocate I'm surprised you didn't watch the conference that first presented it to the public.

And by "preconceived ideas" you mean actual real world performance as opposed to misleading on paper figures from console spin doctors? Figures you seem eager to throw around but are now suddenly getting defensive about.

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".

skektek

Is Cell superior to a CPU in every way? No, because it is geared for better performance in specific areas like floating point performance. It's a more specialised CPU; therefore its application is more specialised than a CPU, application specialised, application specific. Cell wasn't built as a general purpose CPU, it was designed to be used in areas that would benefit from Cells architecture.

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

skektek

No I'm not, you have simply decided that because I won't conform to your way of thinking and it is clearly making you angry. This is System Wars and hence people here are argumentative, labelling someone a troll when all they have done is debate with you is a cheap tactic to discredit that person.

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.

Irick_cb

What are you on about now? I already explained that Nvidia PhysX refers to GPU accelerated physics, with the console implimentation running on the CPU and not the GPU. You said PS3 was 100% Nvidia PhysX compatible, which I corrected you on. So why are you still going on about it?

What are you on about now? I already explained that Nvidia PhysX refers to GPU accelerated physics, with the console implimentation running on the CPU and not the GPU. You said PS3 was 100% Nvidia PhysX compatible, which I corrected you on. So why are you still going on about it?

AnnoyedDragon

Not by Nvidia's definition.

While it may only be available on PC via GPU, the API and algorithms run without the need to re-write code and with the full feature set on the PS3 with performance akin to GPU/PPU run code.

This can not be said of any other CPU, all of which can still run "Nvidia PhysX" in software as "Nvidia PhysX" or "PhysX by Nvidia" is the name of a physics engine.

Even the iPhone can run Nvidia's PhysX in software. You just won't see it animating 2k plus rag dolls like the PS3.

Not by Nvidia's definition.

While it may only be available on PC via GPU, the API and algorithms run without the need to re-write code and with the full feature set on the PS3 with performance akin to GPU/PPU run code.

This can not be said of any other CPU, all of which can still run "Nvidia PhysX" in software as "Nvidia PhysX" or "PhysX by Nvidia" is the name of a physics engine.

Even the iPhone can run Nvidia's PhysX in software. You just won't see it animating 2k plus rag dolls like the PS3.

Irick_cb

Umm, no, if that was the case the PS3 version of GPU/PPU accelerated games would come with the same physics as the PC version. I'm not aware of any console games that got the same hardware accelerated physics that the PC version got.

I also already talked about it having a software mode, which I said it used on systems without hardware physics compatibility.

As far as Cell is concerned the PhysX API is just like any other physics engine optimized to run on Cell, there is nothing special about it to the PS3; which is certainly not 100% "Nvidia" PhysX compatible when it cannot do GPU physics.

Well as interesting as this has all been I have stuff to do now, skektek could be writing a response right now but a that will have to wait for another time.

Umm, no, if that was the case the PS3 version of GPU/PPU accelerated games would come with the same physics as the PC version. I'm not aware of any console games that got the same hardware accelerated physics that the PC version got.

I also already talked about it having a software mode, which I said it used on systems without hardware physics compatibility.

As far as Cell is concerned the PhysX API is just like any other physics engine optimized to run on Cell, there is nothing special about it to the PS3; which is certainly not 100% "Nvidia" PhysX compatible when it cannot do GPU physics.

AnnoyedDragon

I was not aware of any PC game that had 2k plus ragdolls which was not GPU acelorated.

"Nvidia PhysX" is the name, at least after Nvida bought it.

Please try not to get hung up on semantics.

I was not aware of any PC game that had 2k plus ragdolls which was not GPU acelorated.

"Nvidia PhysX" is the name, at least after Nvida bought it.

Please try not to get hung up on semantics.

Irick_cb

What? All I've said is PS3 hasn't got any games that share the same hardware accelerated physics as the PC version, Mirrors Edge and GRAW 2 for example. If PS3 could replicate GPU/PPU physics performance on Cell surely these games would have included the physics on the PS3 version?

Anyway as I've said I have to go now.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[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.

mattbbpl

First and second party developers, the ones who really take the time to get know the hardware, keep pumping out technically astounding games (each arguably the best in its genre in terms of technical merit) such as Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1+2, LBP, MGS4, KZ with others on the horizon (GOW3, GT5, etc).

I hope the next generation of consoles doesn't take the Wii route. I want to see revolutionary improvements in hardware, not incremental.

What? All I've said is PS3 hasn't got any games that share the same hardware accelerated physics as the PC version, Mirrors Edge and GRAW 2 for example. If PS3 could replicate GPU/PPU physics performance on Cell surely these games would have included the physics on the PS3 version?

Anyway as I've said I have to go now.

AnnoyedDragon

I'm not sure if developers wished to/could put aside the memory. It is not because the cell could not.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]ust out of curiosity, why would a tech enthusiast not get their hardware fix from the PC?skektek

Same.

And PCs hardware is limited by having to support aging paradigms (aka Windows) to get into popular/affordable use.

I get excited by console hardware because it is generally new and ushers in new ways to think about programing which get used eventually in PC applications when the hardware gets hacked enough to support them.

that is all that PC innovation ever has been.

dirty, predictable hacks.

*edit*

I give the i7 props for getting rid of the FSB though.

First and second party developers, the ones who really take the time to get know the hardware, keep pumping out technically astounding games (each arguably the best in its genre in terms of technical merit) such as Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1+2, LBP, MGS4, KZ with others on the horizon (GOW3, GT5, etc).

I hope the next generation of consoles doesn't take the Wii route. I want to see revolutionary improvements in hardware, not incremental.

skektek

LOL but this is what i'm saying, is the 4 year dev times, inferior multiplats, inflated price worth an arguable difference? If it was clear as night and day then yes it would be, but its not, I'm not paying an extra $200 for a slight difference and a blu ray player.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I'm not sure if developers wished to/could put aside the memory. It is not because the cell could not.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]ust out of curiosity, why would a tech enthusiast not get their hardware fix from the PC?Irick_cb

Same.

And PCs hardware is limited by having to support aging paradigms (aka Windows) to get into popular/affordable use.

I get excited by console hardware because it is generally new and ushers in new ways to think about programing which get used eventually in PC applications when the hardware gets hacked enough to support them.

that is all that PC innovation ever has been.

dirty, predictable hacks.

they fall in line with a particular standard, there's reason's why standards exists, and no they aren't supporting windows, they are supporint the x86 instruction set which is what windows is built on. I run linux all the time, and right now playing with the win 7 rc which is quite nice i might add. But these are more generalized. when processes went to 64 bit, guess what, it didn't support windows! because windows has to be written with processors having a 64bit address bus.

savagetwinkie

I oversimplified for saneity's sake.

And 64 bit processors still had to be able to run 32 bit windows.

*edit*

Let me give a few examples of why i say i simplified.

There are several bottlenecks in current PC design that could not be gotten rid of without redesigning another pice.

A good example of this is the i7 and its requirement of a new motherboard vs its inovation.

No FSB and a on CPU memory controler (also on the Cell, btw) required parts of the motherboard be replaced.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

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.

AnnoyedDragon

And yet you repeatedly, consistently, repetitively place emphasis on Cells floating point performance and refer to the I7 as if you believe that one area of performance was only what mattered. I have spoken with you in the past regarding it being application specific performance, but you seemed to keep pushing it as if it did say something about overall performance. You may have not specifically stated Cell was superior; but you haven't half given off that impression everywhere I see you. I am judging you by your actions, not what you are saying you weren't claiming right now.

You are sensationalizing my points into something they are not.

The entire point of the Cell is its 32 bit floating point performance. What else would I emphasize? The ratio of consonants to vowels in its name?

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

they fall in line with a particular standard, there's reason's why standards exists, and no they aren't supporting windows, they are supporint the x86 instruction set which is what windows is built on. I run linux all the time, and right now playing with the win 7 rc which is quite nice i might add. But these are more generalized. when processes went to 64 bit, guess what, it didn't support windows! because windows has to be written with processors having a 64bit address bus.

I oversimplified for saneity's sake.

And 64 bit processors still had to be able to run 32 bit windows.

You are sensationalizing my points into something they are not.

The entire point of the Cell is its 32 bit floating point performance. What else would I emphasize? The ratio of consonants to vowels in its name?

skektek

I love you.

that really isn't difficult to achieve, all they did was increase the address and data bus, if you ran windows on it 32bit it just wouldn't be able to load any nubers larger then 2^32. I'm sure they added more though to make it cleaner transition instead of hoping it would work but still. I made an in order 8bit processor and i could easily scale it up to a 60000 bit processor, assuming the fpga was big enough to hold all thuse registers, but all 32 programs i made on it would work no differenly.savagetwinkie

I picked a bad example, but one most people would recognise.

There are some intrinsic flaws with the PC that can not be fixed because of the fact that it needs to be somewhat standardized in the way of architecture.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

they fall in line with a particular standard, there's reason's why standards exists, and no they aren't supporting windows, they are supporint the x86 instruction set which is what windows is built on. I run linux all the time, and right now playing with the win 7 rc which is quite nice i might add. But these are more generalized. when processes went to 64 bit, guess what, it didn't support windows! because windows has to be written with processors having a 64bit address bus.

I oversimplified for saneity's sake.

And 64 bit processors still had to be able to run 32 bit windows.

*edit*

Let me give a few examples of why i say i simplified.

There are several bottlenecks in current PC design that could not be gotten rid of without designing another pice.

A good example of this is the i7 and its requirement of a new motherboard vs its inovation.

No FSB and a on CPU memory controler (also on the Cell, btw) required parts of the motherboard be replaced.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

First and second party developers, the ones who really take the time to get know the hardware, keep pumping out technically astounding games (each arguably the best in its genre in terms of technical merit) such as Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1+2, LBP, MGS4, KZ with others on the horizon (GOW3, GT5, etc).

I hope the next generation of consoles doesn't take the Wii route. I want to see revolutionary improvements in hardware, not incremental.

savagetwinkie

LOL but this is what i'm saying, is the 4 year dev times, inferior multiplats, inflated price worth an arguable difference? If it was clear as night and day then yes it would be, but its not, I'm not paying an extra $200 for a slight difference and a blu ray player.

I prefer the Blu-ray functionality and dedication to high quality first party titles. But to each his own...

I'm not sure if developers wished to/could put aside the memory. It is not because the cell could not.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]ust out of curiosity, why would a tech enthusiast not get their hardware fix from the PC?Irick_cb

Same.

And PCs hardware is limited by having to support aging paradigms (aka Windows) to get into popular/affordable use.

I get excited by console hardware because it is generally new and ushers in new ways to think about programing which get used eventually in PC applications when the hardware gets hacked enough to support them.

that is all that PC innovation ever has been.

dirty, predictable hacks.

*edit*

I give the i7 props for getting rid of the FSB though.

Are you serious? I suppose console hardware pushed Larrabee, multi-core processors, accelerate video cards, GPUs, PPUs, SLI, etc.

Hardware on PC normally leads the pack in terms of architecture, and always leads the pack in terms of overrall performance. The only reason console graphics shine so well on initial release is that the hardware is standardized, so devs can utilize it to it's fullest extent whereas PC devs have to dev to a lower denominator than thebest of what's out there. It takes a little while for the top of the line PC hardware to be commonly used.

Oh, and AMD got rid of the FSB first.

Edit: Why won't Gamespot hold my underline formatting?

I don't think you got the point i was trying to make.

The i7 is innovative, and it got rid of two large bottlenecks in the PC.

It required other things to change aswel.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Are you serious? I suppose console hardware pushed Larrabee, multi-core processors, accelerate video cards, GPUs, PPUs, SLI, etc.

Hardware on PC normally leads the pack in terms of architecture, and always leads the pack in terms of overrall performance. The only reason console graphics shine so well on initial release is that the hardware is standardized, so devs can utilize it to it's fullest extent whereas PC devs have to dev to a lower denominator than thebest of what's out there. It takes a little while for the top of the line PC hardware to be commonly used.

Oh, and AMD got rid of the FSB first.

Edit: Why won't Gamespot hold my underline formatting?

savagetwinkie

"multi-core processors,accelerate video cards,GPUs,PPUs."

Yes, yes they did.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

You are sensationalizing my points into something they are not.

The entire point of the Cell is its 32 bit floating point performance. What else would I emphasize? The ratio of consonants to vowels in its name?

Irick_cb

I love you.

that really isn't difficult to achieve, all they did was increase the address and data bus, if you ran windows on it 32bit it just wouldn't be able to load any nubers larger then 2^32. I'm sure they added more though to make it cleaner transition instead of hoping it would work but still. I made an in order 8bit processor and i could easily scale it up to a 60000 bit processor, assuming the fpga was big enough to hold all thuse registers, but all 32 programs i made on it would work no differenly.savagetwinkie

I picked a bad example, but one most people would recognise.

There are some intrinsic flaws with the PC that can not be fixed because of the fact that it needs to be somewhat standardized in the way of architecture.

Their are no flaws in itsavagetwinkie

I stopped reading.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

First and second party developers, the ones who really take the time to get know the hardware, keep pumping out technically astounding games (each arguably the best in its genre in terms of technical merit) such as Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1+2, LBP, MGS4, KZ with others on the horizon (GOW3, GT5, etc).

I hope the next generation of consoles doesn't take the Wii route. I want to see revolutionary improvements in hardware, not incremental.

LOL but this is what i'm saying, is the 4 year dev times, inferior multiplats, inflated price worth an arguable difference? If it was clear as night and day then yes it would be, but its not, I'm not paying an extra $200 for a slight difference and a blu ray player.

I prefer the Blu-ray functionality and dedication to high quality first party titles. But to each his own...

[QUOTE="skektek"]

You are sensationalizing my points into something they are not.

The entire point of the Cell is its 32 bit floating point performance. What else would I emphasize? The ratio of consonants to vowels in its name?

Irick_cb

I love you.

Wow, thanks, I hope you're not a dude :| LOL

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

Their are no flaws in it

I stopped reading.

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

You are sensationalizing my points into something they are not.

The entire point of the Cell is its 32 bit floating point performance. What else would I emphasize? The ratio of consonants to vowels in its name?

skektek

I love you.

Wow, thanks, I hope you're not a dude :| LOL

Why did you ruin a beautiful moment? :'(

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

Same.

And PCs hardware is limited by having to support aging paradigms (aka Windows) to get into popular/affordable use.

I get excited by console hardware because it is generally new and ushers in new ways to think about programing which get used eventually in PC applications when the hardware gets hacked enough to support them.

that is all that PC innovation ever has been.

dirty, predictable hacks.

*edit*

I give the i7 props for getting rid of the FSB though.

Are you serious? I suppose console hardware pushed Larrabee, multi-core processors, accelerate video cards, GPUs, PPUs, SLI, etc.

Hardware on PC normally leads the pack in terms of architecture, and always leads the pack in terms of overrall performance. The only reason console graphics shine so well on initial release is that the hardware is standardized, so devs can utilize it to it's fullest extent whereas PC devs have to dev to a lower denominator than thebest of what's out there. It takes a little while for the top of the line PC hardware to be commonly used.

Oh, and AMD got rid of the FSB first.

Edit: Why won't Gamespot hold my underline formatting?

"multi-core processors,accelerate video cards,GPUs,PPUs."

Yes, yes they did.

It's news to me. Which consoles implemented those things first? mattbbpl

You said pushed. Don't change your argument.

Consoles pushed GPU technology. (SNES, PSX + N64)

Consoles pushed multicore processor architecture. (PSX/PS2[arguable, not true multicore, but the parallelization of code was there], 360 PS3)

Consoles pushed gaming in general.

Without consoles, you would probably not see nearly as much support for game related technology, or as well optimized code.

Which has been my argument ever since i started following hardware advances.

the PC usually sees these innovations first, but consoles make it mainstream and force people to optimize their code to take advantage of aging hardware.

The Cell has been a bigger success then the EE in terms of use outside the PS2/3.

To bad Sony sold their claim in it.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]It's news to me. Which consoles implemented those things first? Irick_cb

You said pushed. Don't change your argument.

Consoles pushed GPU technology. (SNES, PSX + N64)

Consoles pushed multicore processor architecture. (PSX/PS2[arguable, not true multicore, but the parallelization of code was there], 360 PS3)

Consoles pushed gaming in general.

Without consoles, you would probably not see nearly as much support for game related technology, or as well optimized code.

Which has been my argument ever since i started following hardware advances.

the PC usually sees these innovations first, but consoles make it mainstream and force people to optimize their code to take advantage of aging hardware.

The Cell has been a bigger success then the EE in terms of use outside the PS2/3.

To bad Sony sold their claim in it.

There's zero evidence that shows consoles pushed GPU tech...that's just silly. Real world examples please? Preferable software that proved it was pushing GPU Tech, thanks. Consoles were nothing more than predefined machines, mass produced to the point where they were affordable enough to reach as many people as possible. GPU and graphics tech over the years has been tested and moved forward in the PC space if anything. It's where the tech boom was at, the venture capital that started companies like ATI/NVIDIA. The money wasn't coming from Sega/Ninty/Sony for R&D, they weren't pushing anything.

Pre-GPU, the PC was stomping all over consoles, and once GPU's from Voodoo and the like came to the market in the 90's, the PC was light years ahead of the then current consoles. Pre-GPU, remember Wing Commander and Tie Fighter? They were far ahead of consoles(i'm trying not to laugh thinking back at it). When Goldeneye came out on N64, Quake and Dark Forces made it look absolutely horrible by compariison, it's not even a debate. When HL1 came out, and then System Shock and then Deus Ex, NOTHING compared to it on consoles. PC has always been ahead on the tech curve.

EDIT

Let's observe. It's only this generation, when consoles have essentially copied what PC's have been doing for years, that we see the gap narrowed between console and PC. Still, as for real world examples, there's nothing on the 360 or PS3 that can't be done better on PC, it's just a fact. People can talk until they are blue in the face about what the Cell CAN do for PS3, but it's just not reality. The debate whether or not it was worth Sony going down the Cell road is yet to be seen at this point. Nobody knows for sure how it's going to turn out, but given that 360 is a more popular console, multiplat games will never fully utilize the difference between consoles.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="Irick_cb"]

I love you.

Irick_cb

Wow, thanks, I hope you're not a dude :| LOL

Why did you ruin a beautiful moment? :'(

:lol: