Im Convinced.. Crysis COULD Work on PS3 and look as good

Crysis wont be released in September, Its not even launched Multplayer BETA yet even (Rumoured to be 1-4 weeks away).

Gonna be spamming google for an announcment every day til its there damnit! only 25000 keys given out for the beta :( 

[QUOTE="-KinGz-"][QUOTE="retrib"]

[QUOTE="MoldOnHold"]Does 256 mb RAM mean anything to you?retrib

you're such a fanboy, shoo

Why he's right, the ps3 is limited to 256 of RAM (video) and 256 ram system, do you homework.

I know more about the PS3 then you do, son, developers can streamline from each pull of memory, if anything the PS3 is just limited to 204mb of system RAM, and the use of Texture Streaming eliminates some of the problems. Don't flipping tell me the 360 can run crysis, because I can bet my life, it can't. I'm not say the Ps3 can either.

I will quote you. Also, can you show us any qualifications?

Crysis wont be released in September, Its not even launched Multplayer BETA yet even (Rumoured to be 1-4 weeks away).

Gonna be spamming google for an announcment every day til its there damnit! only 25000 keys given out for the beta :( 

Meu2k7

When do you think it will be released. Are you saying earlier or later than that??

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has? 

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Crysis wont be released in September, Its not even launched Multplayer BETA yet even (Rumoured to be 1-4 weeks away).

Gonna be spamming google for an announcment every day til its there damnit! only 25000 keys given out for the beta :(

Killfox

When do you think it will be released. Are you saying earlier or later than that??

Later, I am in no way convinced it will be done for september release. For all we know the Multiplayer could be poor at best and they need more time to do it over. I just hope I get into the beta to see how it goes :P 

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game. 

no it would'nt..

the ps3 is'nt what sony said it was going to be by a long shot...it cant even run F.E.A.R. at respectable levels and that game is anchient!!

The PS3 has one main 256MB RAM and then 256MB of VRAM

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/About/TechnicalSpecifications

Can some eplain what that means?

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

The Cell wouldn't be the problem, it would most likely be the lack of system memory. 

[QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

hamumu

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game. 

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

The PS3 has one main 256MB RAM and then 256MB of VRAM

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/About/TechnicalSpecifications

Can some explain what that means?

The PS3 has one main 256MB RAM and then 256MB of VRAM

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/About/TechnicalSpecifications

Can some eplain what that means?

Mafia17

It means it has a pool of 256 MB of memory that's dedicated to the CPU, and 256 MB that's dedicated the GPU.  Typically the CPU memory contains data for what characters/objects are in the level and what their stats are, the stats of the player, etc.  The GPU memory typically contains textures and vertex data (geometry for the 3D models).

[QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

hamumu

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

"Superior" depends on what exactly you're talking about.  If you tried to run Windows on the Cell and use a web browser while checking your email and listening to music, it wouldn't be so hot.  If you're talking about simultaneously calculating AI, cloth physics, and back-face culling, using code written specifically for the Cell, then there's no question it would shine.

Realistic PS3 version :

Sound - I give PS3 this one, as both PS3 and PC can out-put 7.1 PS3 can out-put slightly better Dolby- true HD or DTS-HD lossless audio.

Physics - PS3 with Cell can easily match this.

Pixel shaders - Hmmm i dont know, maybe PS3 with Cell and RSX could possibly acheive ~80% of the PC version shaders?

Textures - No comparison really, PC wins. But with some clever memory and HDD tricks PS3 could possibly meet about ~60% of the texture detail?

Lighting - Both can do HDR so tehres no point on this one.

DX10 features - Software emulation is key here, using Cell to do "some" of the effects via the software route.

PC version with definately be the best version but i think PS3 would do ok with Cry-Engine 2.

It all depends on how good Crytec are at porting code over to PS3 and Cell. 

[QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

[QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

PC CPU's are bigger and stronger, funiest part is theyre more efficient for games, how ironic. 

[QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

hamumu

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :| 

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=19627&type=mov&pl=game  Mix Heavenly sword's object physics with Uncharteds lush and rich enviroments and you have Crysis level graphics and physics. Watch that heavenly sword video and a couple minutes into it look how fluid and smooth the graphics of the barrels and tables are. After seeing these PS3 titles in action, there is no doubt that in a few years PS3 will be able to do Crysis ****graphics, hell maybe even better BrutonNYC

Only its levels would be 10x10 meters as in Drake, when on PC are 10x10 miles

[QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

[QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

hamumu

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core.  We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple.  The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively).  Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4.  The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4.  While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing.  To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

[QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

Killfox

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core.  We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple.  The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively).  Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4.  The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4.  While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing.  To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

1. That article is OLLLDDDDD.

2. That article is complete bullsh*t and has been debunked many times.

3. You are SELF-OWNED.

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4. The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

1. That article is OLLLDDDDD.

2. That article is complete bullsh*t and has been debunked many times.

3. You are SELF-OWNED.

so basiclly you have no actual proof he is wrong...... 

[QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

cobrax75

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4. The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

1. That article is OLLLDDDDD.

2. That article is complete bullsh*t and has been debunked many times.

3. You are SELF-OWNED.

so basiclly you have no actual proof he is wrong...... 

I just read the last paragraph of the article and applied common sense :|

"To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4."

I meen a Pentium 4 beats Xenon? :lol: Please anyone who beleives that needs shooting in the head :lol: 

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4. The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

1. That article is OLLLDDDDD.

2. That article is complete bullsh*t and has been debunked many times.

3. You are SELF-OWNED.

so basiclly you have no actual proof he is wrong......

I just read the last paragraph of the article and applied common sense :|

"To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4."

I meen a Pentium 4 beats Xenon? :lol: Please anyone who beleives that needs shooting in the head :lol:

so again...other then your own opinion, you have nothing that says the article is wrong......

BTW a pentium 4 can still max out any game today..... 

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=19627&type=mov&pl=game  Mix Heavenly sword's object physics with Uncharteds lush and rich enviroments and you have Crysis level graphics and physics. Watch that heavenly sword video and a couple minutes into it look how fluid and smooth the graphics of the barrels and tables are. After seeing these PS3 titles in action, there is no doubt that in a few years PS3 will be able to do Crysis ****graphics, hell maybe even better BrutonNYC

Uncharteds graphics arent even close. They are about as good as far cry with better characture modles. They look better because they are very clean with smoth animations and no cliping.

Pixel shaders - Hmmm i dont know, maybe PS3 with Cell and RSX could possibly acheive ~80% of the PC version shaders?mrboo15

search Crysis on ign and it shows Crytek project for ps3 and ign is saying it may be crysishi381

interesting.

i heard they are hiring ppl with cross-platform and port development skills, which are used to PS3's hardware.

[QUOTE="hi381"]search Crysis on ign and it shows Crytek project for ps3 and ign is saying it may be crysisSambaLele

interesting.

i heard they are hiring ppl with cross-platform and port development skills, which are used to PS3's hardware.

People always get the wrong idea and jump into the conclusion that it's being developed for PS3 because they see PS3 job section. When Cevet Yerli, the president of Crytek, and a number of spokespersons directly confirmed that there won't be a port of Crysis in several interviews (look it up, it's found in GS and GT), it will not come to PS3. They are just hiring them for porting the game engine only.

I think Crysis has the best graphics I've ever seen for a game...

And while Uncharted is the best looking console game in my view, I don't think Crysis would be able to run as well as it does on PC for the PS3. Maybe really late in the console's life but not at the moment. 

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

mrboo15

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4. The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

1. That article is OLLLDDDDD.

2. That article is complete bullsh*t and has been debunked many times.

3. You are SELF-OWNED.

Debunked? By who? Any self-respecting computer engineer would easily say a OOE is better then inorder. 

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="hi381"]search Crysis on ign and it shows Crytek project for ps3 and ign is saying it may be crysisMyLargefeet

interesting.

i heard they are hiring ppl with cross-platform and port development skills, which are used to PS3's hardware.

People always get the wrong idea and jump into the conclusion that it's being developed for PS3 because they see PS3 job section. When Cevet Yerli, the president of Crytek, and a number of spokespersons directly confirmed that there won't be a port of Crysis in several interviews (look it up, it's found in GS and GT), it will not come to PS3. They are just hiring them for porting the game engine only.

yes, i know it. when i first saw that, i thought they were planning to create a new game for the PS3. but i don't reject the possibility of maybe they're trying to make crysis work in the console...

[QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="hamumu"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

Crysis physics = standard dual core PC powered

PS3 physics = Cell powered

Cell >> PC CPUs

So why cant PS3 atleast do the physics that Crysis has?

WhySoCry

First off, no, the Cell is not superior to PC CPU's.

Yes it can do the physics. Too bad the physics doesn't mean it can run the game.

Dude GTFO, theres NO pc CPU that can compete with Cell in physics calculations, agiea have already said that Cell is equal to or slighty better then a dedicated physics processor for the PC. So dont come all the "PC cpus are better" bullsh*t because there not.

Amazing, since the Cell can do physics calculations at high speeds, it's suddenly superior to all other CPU's? If this was the holy grail of CPU's as you put it, then it would be implemented in virtually every single CPU design. The Cell is very good at running floating point calcs, but it is not superior to regular CPU's when it comes to gaming.

Wow, I would expect a full featured processor to beat an add-on card. If you had an extra CPU in a PC that was dedicated soley to physics, then of course it would run much faster then the Ageia.

And it's prety awesome that you completely ignored my second point. Yes, it could render physics just fine, but that is only one part of the game.

Thats all physics are :|

Yes, and I said before "Yes it can do the physics."

Problems with the Architecture
At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
best characterized as being quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow
2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4. The Xenon
CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have
exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
Pentium 4.

1. That article is OLLLDDDDD.

2. That article is complete bullsh*t and has been debunked many times.

3. You are SELF-OWNED.

Debunked? By who? Any self-respecting computer engineer would easily say a OOE is better then inorder. 

Im still waiting to be proved wrong.

Im still waiting to be proved wrong.

Killfox

Can I please have a link to that article? I find it intriguing when the "super computer" consoles are brought back down to earth and its one of the main reasons I decided to upgrade my computer instead. 

the problem with Crysis and next gen consoles is RAM...360 could easily run Crysis if it had mor RAM..the PS3 could run it maybe if it had more RAMprimetime2121

I could run it in theory with more ram, but it still wouldn't look nearly as sweet running it with an 8800 or 2900, as these cards will be put to the test, the 360/PS3 just can't keep up with them, not by a long shot.  

[QUOTE="mrboo15"]Pixel shaders - Hmmm i dont know, maybe PS3 with Cell and RSX could possibly acheive ~80% of the PC version shaders?Makari

Just look at the amount of shader operations, it's completely over the top. I'm really hoping ATI can get some decent drivers out, as I'm sure those recent benchies they released would do much better against the 8800 768mb